Case nº Revision Petition No. 2462 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, September 10, 2014 (case Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs Rajesh Satija)

JudgeFor Appellant: Anubha Agarwal, Advocate and For Respondents: Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
PresidentAjit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
Resolution DateSeptember 10, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Suresh Chandra, Member

  1. By this revision petition, the petitioner/opposite party has challenged the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 867 of 2006 whereby the State Commission has partly accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner Authority and modified the order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the District Forum, Faridabad in favour of the respondent/complainant. The petitioner not being satisfied with the impugned order, has preferred this revision petition for further relief. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

  2. We have perused the application and heard learned Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners and learned Shri Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate for the respondent. It is seen from the application that there is a delay of 344 days in filing the revision petition. Following explanation has been given in the application in support of the request for condonation of delay in question:-

    2. That the Hon'ble State Commission announced the order on 15.2.2011 and the copy of the order was prepared on 18.4.2011 and posted on 27.4.2011. In the office of Estate Officer, Faridabad copy of the order was received and the same was sent to the Head Office at Panchkula for taking appropriate action.

    3. That after receiving the copy of the order from the office of Estate Officer, Faridabad the case was examined by the Legal branch. The D.D.A., HUDA after verification of the facts and legal position of the case proposed for filing revision petition against the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission. The counsel engaged by the applicant prepared the draft revision petition and sent to the Estate Officer, HUDA Faridabad. In the office of Estate Officer, HUDA Faridabad the file was processed for verification of the facts from the accounts branch and thereafter in the allotment branch and thereafter put before Estate Officer. After verification of the facts the file was sent to the Head Office along with the draft revision petition. The draft revision petition was approved and sent to the counsel for filing the revision petition. The whole process was time consuming. Thus there is a delay for filing the revision petition.

    4. That the delay in filing the present revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional but on account of aforementioned circumstances.

  3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that the petitioner is a Government authority and the delay in filing the revision petition is on account of the procedures followed by the Authority in such matters and that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and as such may be condoned. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has vehemently...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT