ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Basic facts of the case are that a booth in Industrial Area, Punchkula was allotted by the petitioner vide its letter dated 28.3.1993. Certain payments were made by the complainant to HUDA. The basic dispute relates to the payable interest levied by the petitioner on the complainant for the delayed instalments/ payments on the due amounts. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to recalculate the interest payable by the complainant at the rate of 15 per cent simple rate of interest and also awarded a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. On an appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed on merit with the modification that the cost of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the District Forum was waived off.
3. Having not been satisfied with this order, this revision petition is filed before us with a delay of 43 days.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner on condonation as well as on merits.
On the first point the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, III (1996) CLT 62 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 1623, wherein the Apex Court held certain latitudes to be shown to the public authorities like HUDA and they also held the State cannot be put as an individual.
5. We have seen the application of condonation of delay and it does not show even one good point to condone the delay except to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Mani’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court itself has held that the expression “Sufficient cause should therefore be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach”. Issue before us is that not even the lamest of the excuse has not been expounded before us to enable us to consider the application for condoning the delay. Since no ground has been shown except the citation we do not find this ground alone as a sufficient ground to condone this delay even on merits we find that what the State Commission has awarded is charging of interest as per the terms of the contract which need no interference at revision stage.
On the revision, petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.