ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 07.09.2018  in AP/CA No. 37 of 2015  of the State Commission,  Arunachal Pradesh.   

2.       It appears that the following Order was passed by the State Commission on 07.09.2018:-

“None appears when the matter is called upon for hearing.  On the previous date also i.e. on 6/8/2018 when there was no appearance, the following order was passed, “Heard Mr. U. Bori, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V. Jamoh, who suibmits that heis away for his native village at Pasighat.  The case was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellants, but subsequently restored to file.  So many adjournment has been obtained by the appellant.  After consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing  of the appeal is adjournment till next date. Further adjournment shall not be granted.

In spite of the above order, none appears today when the matter was called upon.  Dismissed for non-appearance.”  

3.       Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said Order the present petition has been filed.

4.       The petition has been filed with a reported delay of 279 days.  As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

5.       Learned counsel has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application.  It may be apt to extract the relevant paragraphs of the delay condonation application:-

5. That on receipt of the order and on its analysis, the Petitioner asked its legal counsel for advice on whether to file a Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Commission. The said legal counsel opined to prefer a Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Commission. 

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner Company as per the internal procedures prepared a note seeking approval of the Competent Authority. After receipt of the approval from the Competent Authority, the Petitioner instructed its authorized counsel to draft the Petition. That the Registered Office of the Petitioner is in Mumbai. The inputs/documents required for preparation of the Petition were to come from the said office at Mumbai. That due to heavy rains in the Mumbai and the situation of flood it was very difficult to collect the documents from the concerned department on time. 

7. The relevant details/ documents are collected from the concerned departments within the Mumbai Office with great difficulty and then compiled and are then sent to the Legal Department which subsequently forwards the same to the Advocate handling a particular matter. 

8. Therefore, there is a delay of ____ days in filing of the Petition. That the Petitioner have a strong and valid grounds to success in this Petition. Therefore the delay of ____ days in filing this Petition as to be condoned otherwise I will be suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 

6.       Learned counsel has further submitted that the merits of the case remained unadjudicated as the matter was dismissed in non-prosecution by the State Commission.  Submission is that, therefore, the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be restored before the State Commission to be decided on merits.   

7.       First of all it may be observed that in the ordinary course whenever the aspect of evaluating the sufficiency of cause behind the delayed filing of a given petition or appeal, as the case may be, is involved, it is advisable to adopt a liberal approach and not a pedantic one.  A pragmatic view needs to be adopted as it is found preferable to decide a case on its merits rather than to thwart the same at the threshold on the point of limitation.  But while saying so, it must not be misconstrued to mean that the approach to be adopted can ever be such which may reduce the law on the point of limitation, wherever it is provided, into insignificance as if it is inconsequential and does not signify any