State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Director Agriculture State Of U P Krishi ... vs Adya Sharan Chaudhary & Others on 19 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1140/2025
(Against the Order dated 21st June 2024 in Appeal SC/9/A/740/2023 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)
WITH
NC/IA/10533/2025 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)
NC/IA/10532/2025 (ADDITIONAL FACT)
NC/IA/10531/2025 (INTERIM RELIEF)
NC/IA/10530/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE STATE OF U P KRISHI BHAWAN LUCKNOW
PERMANENT ADDRESS - LUCKNOW , GANDHI NAGAR , KRISHI BHAWAN CIVIL LINES ,
BASTI,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
ADYA SHARAN CHAUDHARY & OTHERS
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O MOHALLA-ORIJOT,POST-GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION-
KOTWALI,DISTT-BASTIBASTI,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR THE PETITIONER MR. ANIL MITTAL, ADVOCATE MS. SHAURYA MITTAL,
ADVOCATE
DATED: 19/11/2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 21.06.2024, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 740 of 2023, arising out of the Order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti, (for short the 'District Commission') in Consumer Case No. 203/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/10530/2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay of 310 days in filing of the present revision petition occurred for the reason that the petitioner did not receive the certified copy of the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 from the office of the District Commission, Basti as per the requirement of law. In October, 2024, the petitioners received notice of Recovery of the awarded amount by way of arrears of land revenue and then they came to know that their appeal had been dismissed on 21.06.2024 by the learned State Commission. Thereafter, the petitioners sought legal opinion about filing of the revision petition against the impugned order. After receiving the opinion, the petitioners sought permission from the Head Office for filing of the revision. After getting permission in April, 2025 from the Head Office, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh after collecting all the documents, petitioners approached the Law Department for appointment of the counsel to file the revision petition. It has further been stated that the petitioners also applied for certified copy of the order dated 21.06.2024, which was handed over on 10.06.2025. In all this process delay of about 310 days occurred in filing of the present petition and that delay is neither intentional nor with any ulterior motive but has occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioners. Therefore, the delay may be condoned.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following case laws"
(i) State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. MANU/SC/0426/1996;
(ii) State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2191;
(iii) Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd.
& Ors. MANU/SC/0132/2012
(iv) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. MANU/SC/0932/2013.
5. Considered the submissions made, perused the record and also the cited case laws.
6. In the present matter the revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 wherein the order passed by the concerned District Commission was upheld by the State Commission, with a delay of 146 days as per calculation of the Registry and delay of 310 days as per the calculation of the petitioners.
7. The main ground for condonation of delay taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner being a Government body, it took time to get approvals at different levels in filing of the petition.
8. The case law relied upon by the petitioner i.e. State of Nagaland V. Lipok AO & Ors. (supra) relates to a criminal case wherein this is a consumer complaint related matter wherein the complainant / appeal / petition is expected to be decided in a time bound manner. The contentions in the delay condonation application show that the petitioner was not diligent in filing of this petition. In the case law cited in the Office of the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:
"12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly bids everybody including the Government."
9. No doubt the State /Government bodies should be given latitude while considering the delay condonation but the delay should be properly explained and it should be shown that the concerned State / Government body acted with due diligence.
10. In the considered opinion of this Bench the reasons given in the delay condonation application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not convincing enough to condone the delay.
11. In the case law Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles regarding condonation of delay:
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is significant and relevant fact.
(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
(xiii) The state or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
12. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.
13. In the aforementioned circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Bench, there is no sufficient ground for condoning the said delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and present revision petition is also concomitantly dismissed in limine, as time-barred.
Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room.
..................J SAROJ YADAV PRESIDING MEMBER