National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Huda And Anr. vs Smt. Anita Chaudhary [Alongwith ... on 29 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ148(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These two Revision Petitions have been filed by Petitioner, HUDA being aggrieved by the two separate orders passed by the State Commission, Haryana.
2. While Revision Petition No. 2097/2003 has been filed with a delay of 1390 days, Revision Petition No. 2098/2003 has been filed with the delay of 85 days.
3. In their application for condonation of delay not even a single ground has been shown for the delay except to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 1623) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what is ultimately analysis suffers is public interest. The expression "Sufficient Cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism injustice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause of explaining every days delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held in the aforementioned case that:
Equally, the state cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual will always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of filling appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants."
4. The orders passed by the Apex Court become a law of the land and we have the highest regard for the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The sum and substances of the orders passed by the Apex Court is that the interpretation of the word "sufficient cause" needs to be considered with pragmatism. The starting point is that some grounds for condonation of delay must be there on record to enable us to make use of the spirit of the judgment. In the application of condonation of delay not even remotely any ground has been brought forward for condonation of delay as to how the State Agency sat over the matter for 1390 days in one and 85 days in another case. When an important right had accrued to the other party it is easy for the State Agency to keep the litigation alive for good and for not so good reasons. But it hurts the common man most when he is unnecessarily engaged in litigation by public authorities who are otherwise charged with the responsibility of providing the basic amenities which is an essential feature of a good civil life. Since no grounds has been expounded by the Petitioner we are afraid that they will be able to take advantage of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra).
5. In both these cases we are unable to condone the delay as not being shown any ground for condonation of delay - hence these Revision Petitions are dismissed as barred by limitations.
6. No order as to costs.