Bihar State Housing Board vs Ganeshi Devi on 21 April, 2006

0
45
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bihar State Housing Board vs Ganeshi Devi on 21 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: III (2006) CPJ 413 NC
Bench: K G Member

ORDER

K.S. Gupta, J. (Member)

1. In this revision challenge is to the order dated 8.11.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna dismissing appeal against the order dated 31.3.2004 of a District Forum as being barred by limitation by 219 days.

2. There is also delay of 265 days in filing this revision for condonation whereof an application has been filed along with revision petition. Certified copy of the said order dated 8.11.2004 was supplied to the petitioner Board on 17.11.2004 and this re vision has been filed on 7.12.2005. In the application dates of moment of file at different levels have been relevant. Without referring to all the dates reference to some of dates needs be made for deciding the application. Paras 11, 12 and 13 of the application read as under:

11. That on 25.2.2005 the Law Supervisor sent the said file through the Assistant Law Officer before the Managing Director of the Board to obtain necessary approval of the draft of memo of appeal.

12. That the Managing Director gave verbal instructions to get the memo of appeal drafted by Mr. Ravindera Singh, Advocate.

13. That accordingly the file was entrusted to Mr. Rabindra Singh, Advocate who after preparing the draft of Memo of Appeal submitted in the office of the Board on 7.5.2005.

3. Paras 4 and 5 of the application notice that file was sent to Mr. A.K. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for drafting the memo of appeal and he returned the file with draft of memo of appeal to the Legal Advisor of the petitioner Board on 8.2.2005. As may be seen from aforesaid paras 11 to 13 there is time of more than two months before the memo of appeal was drafted by Mr. Rabindra Singh, Advocate for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished.

4 Paras 18 to 20 of the application which are material read as under :

18. That on 10.5.2005 the Managing Director sent the said file to Legal Section.

19. That again the matter was discussed with the concerned Lawyer and modification was made and again the file was sent to the Revenue Section.

20. That on 12.8.2005 the Revenue Officer sent the said file to Legal Advisor.

5. Date of alleged discussion referred to in Para 19 has not been disclosed. Further, for delay of over three months upto 12.8.2005, no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner Board.

6. Paras 25 and 26 of the application which are relevant, are reproduced below :

25. That in the said case the learned District Forum has taken steps for issuance of warrant of arrest and taking into account the urgency of the case, the relevant file was entrusted to the panel lawyer of the Board namely Mr. Ram Kishore Singh on 21.9.2005 for preparing the Limitation Petition.

26. That accordingly the Limitation Petition was prepared and submitted in the office of the Board on 23.9.2005 and accordingly after completing all the necessary formalities this appeal is being filed.

7. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that revision was filed on 7.12.2005. Again no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the period for more than two months in between 23.9.2005 to 6.12.2005. Application seeking condonation of said delay in filing revision thus deserves to be dismissed as not disclosing sufficient cause to condone the delay. Dismissed as such. Revision petition too is dismissed as being barred by limitation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here