Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

A/32/2023

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary — Delhi Development Authority v. Kumud Rustogi (IA No.214/2023 in FA No.32/2023)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal was filed by the Appellant (Delhi Development Authority) on 27.01.2023 challenging the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission (South-II) in CC No.240/2018 (titled Kumud Rustogi v. Delhi Development Authority). Along with the appeal, the Appellant filed IA No.214/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

The Appellant's explanation described a sequence of internal steps after the District Commission's order of 27.01.2022: on 25.04.2022 counsel for the Appellant sent a note advising whether to accept or challenge the judgment; the Senior Law Officer prepared and forwarded a note to the Deputy Chief Legal Advisor-II recommending challenge; the matter was sent to a local division (Water Cell) and a Consultant for opinion; the Water Cell and Consultant recommended filing an appeal; the file moved through Assistant Director (Water Cell) and back to Deputy Chief Legal Advisor; collation of ledgers and documents dating from 2005 onwards was required. The Appellant also cited the third wave of COVID-19 in Delhi at the time the impugned order was passed.

Statutorily, the appeal time under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is thirty days from the order. The impugned order was dated 27.01.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 27.01.2023. The court recorded that the appeal was filed with a delay of 274 days, while the Appellant sought condonation of 260 days.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be condoned on the grounds advanced by the Appellant.
Whether the Appellant's explanation (including reliance on the pandemic-related extension of limitation and internal government procedures) amounts to a "sufficient cause" to justify condonation of delay.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The impugned order was passed on 27.01.2022 during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Delhi, and the Appellant relied on the Supreme Court's order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (WP(C) No.3/2020) that adjusted limitation periods for pandemic-affected durations.
On 25.04.2022, counsel for the Appellant sent a note about the District Commission's judgment and advised the Appellant to decide whether to accept or challenge it; thereafter internal notes and approvals were sought within the Appellant's legal and technical departments.
The matter required consultations with a Consultant and the Water Cell, examination of ledgers and documents from 2005 onwards, and approvals from multiple officials (Senior Law Officer, Deputy Chief Legal Advisor-II, Assistant Director, Water Cell), causing delay.
The Appellant contended the delay was not willful or intentional but resulted from government procedure, multiple layers of examination, and the need to avoid wasting judicial time by ensuring viability of appeal.
The Appellant sought condonation of delay (stated as 260 days in its application), asserting that in the circumstances condonation was warranted to prevent irreparable damage to the Appellant's interests.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any arguments advanced by the Respondent(s) in opposition within the provided text.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [WP(C) No.3/2020]	Extension of limitation: where limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, persons have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 (or the longer actual balance, if greater).	The court noted the Appellant relied on this order. The court observed that even accepting the extension, there remained a delay of 180 days in filing the appeal.
Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 2014 SC 746)	Definition and explanation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay (meaning "adequate"/"enough"; no negligence; bona fide; need for satisfactory explanation and day-to-day account where appropriate).	The court quoted the definition to frame the standard the Appellant must meet to obtain condonation of delay and applied it to evaluate the Appellant's explanation.
Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC))	Emphasis on not condoning very long delays; need to consider expeditious adjudication in consumer matters and that highly belated appeals defeat that object; requirement to explain day-to-day delay.	The court relied on the decision to underscore that long unexplained delays in consumer matters are not readily condoned and that the Appellant had not furnished adequate day-to-day explanation.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (referenced within Anil Kumar Sharma)	(Referenced principle) Courts should keep in mind the special period of limitation in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication when considering condonation applications.	Referenced as an underlying authority supporting the proposition that belated appeals undermine the object of consumer legislation and must be scrutinized.
Lingeswaran Etc. v. Thirunagalingam (SLP Nos.2054-2055/2022 — judgment dated 25.02.2022)	Where delay is not properly explained and there are no merits in the condonation application, condoning delay would give a premium to failure to explain and amounts to rewarding delay; the condonation application should be dismissed.	The court invoked this authority to support dismissal where the Appellant failed to properly explain the delay and to emphasize that unexplained delays should not be rewarded.
Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer ((2013) 10 SCC 765)	Limitation must be applied with rigour where the statute prescribes; courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds despite hardship.	The court invoked this principle to reinforce that statutory limitation periods must be enforced strictly and that equitable considerations do not permit extension of limitation where the statute does not allow.
Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. (AIR 2012 SC 1506)	Government entities cannot rely on "impersonal machinery" or bureaucratic delays as an automatic excuse for delay; government bodies must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations and cannot expect special treatment in limitation matters.	The court relied on this authority to reject the Appellant's generalized claim that delay resulted from impersonal government machinery, indicating that government departments must offer cogent explanations for delays.
Kumud Rustogi v. Delhi Development Authority (CC No.240/2018) — impugned District Commission order dated 27.01.2022	The underlying order that was challenged by the Appellant by way of appeal to the State Commission.	The court identified this as the impugned order; its date (27.01.2022) was central to calculating the period of limitation and the delay in filing the appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in a structured way:

Statutory framework: The court referred to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which prescribes a thirty-day period to prefer an appeal against a District Forum order to the State Commission and allows the State Commission to entertain appeals after that period if satisfied there was "sufficient cause" for delay.
Calculation of delay: The impugned order was dated 27.01.2022. The appeal was filed on 27.01.2023. The court recorded a delay of 274 days in filing the appeal, noting that the Appellant's condonation application sought condonation of 260 days.
Burden to show "sufficient cause": The court applied the Supreme Court's explanation of "sufficient cause" (from Basawaraj) as requiring an adequate, bona fide, and non-negligent explanation; the applicant must show why it was prevented from prosecuting the appeal and should provide satisfactory and, where relevant, day-to-day reasons.
Assessment of Appellant's explanation: The court examined paragraphs 3 to 10 of the condonation application (which describe counsel's note of 25.04.2022 and the ensuing internal consultations and approvals). The court found there were no cogent reasons explaining why immediate steps were not taken before 25.04.2022, and the Appellant did not produce documents to establish the timeline of when internal notes and approvals were exchanged.
Reliance on pandemic-related extension: The Appellant invoked the Supreme Court's order extending limitation for pandemic periods. The court accepted that the extension applied but observed that even after taking that extension into account the Appellant still had a residual delay (the court recorded an unexplained delay of 180 days beyond what the extension would cover).
Use of precedents to test excuses: The court applied authorities (Anil Kumar Sharma, Lingeswaran, Popat Bahiru Goverdhane, and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media) to emphasize that:
- Consumer matters require expeditious adjudication and courts should not condone highly belated appeals without adequate explanation;
- Mere recitation of internal procedures, impersonal machinery, or bureaucratic notes is inadequate as an excuse for delay, particularly for government entities;
- Limitation statutes must be applied as prescribed; equitable considerations cannot be used to extend periods not allowed by statute.
Final evaluative conclusion: The court concluded that the Appellant failed to give an acceptable, cogent, and day-to-day explanation for the delay. The events and reasons mentioned in the application were characterized as internal arrangements and procedural steps insufficient to meet the "sufficient cause" standard. Consequently, the court found the condonation application without merit.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for condonation of delay (IA No.214/2023) filed by the Appellant is dismissed; consequently the appeal (FA No.32/2023) filed beyond the stipulated period is also dismissed.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the Appellant's condonation application failed and the appeal challenging the District Commission's order dated 27.01.2022 will not be entertained due to inordinate and unexplained delay.
The court imposed no order as to costs.
The opinion applies existing principles concerning "sufficient cause," day-to-day explanation of delay, the strict application of limitation in consumer matters, and the limited acceptability of government departmental procedure as an excuse. The judgment does not announce any novel legal principle; it applies settled precedents to the facts before the court.

Administrative note in the opinion: "File be consigned to record room." The judgment is signed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Member (Judicial) Pinki.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

DDA v. KUMUD RUSTOGI

Page 1 of 8

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. KUMUD RUSTOGI

20.04.2023

IA NO.214/2023 IN FA NO.32/2023 The present Appeal was filed by the Appellant on 27.01.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 passed by Ld. District Commission (South -II) in CC No. 240/2018 titled as Kumud Rustogi v. Delhi Development Authority. Alongwith the appeal, there is an application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

Therefore, vide this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay in the above appeal. The application has been moved on behalf of the Appellant bearing IA No.214/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the following ground:

1. …….

2. ……

3. The impugned order in the present case was passed on 27.01.2022 when Delhi was reeling under the dreaded third wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

4. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considering the drastic surge in the number of COVID 19 cases across the country at that particular time, in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [WP(C) No.3/2020] held that:

Page 2 of 8

In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, the longer period shall apply.

5. That it was on 25.04.2022 that the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant before the Ld. District Commission sent a note regarding the judgment in the case and advised the Appellant to take a decision on accepting or challenging the judgment of the Ld. District Commission.

6. It is submitted that upon receipt of the note of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant before Ld. District Commission, the Senior Law Offier engineering prepared a note and sent it to the Deputy Chief Legal Advisor -II with a finding that the impugned order should be challenged.

7. That since the matter involved multiple dates, facts and documents, the files was then sent to the concerned local division that hold the charge of water cell. In addition, thereto opinion of a Consultant was also sought in order to be sure that the infirmities of the impugned order so as to not waste precious judicial time by filing an appeal, if it was not required.

8. That the Consultant and water cell were both of the view that the impugned order was erroneous and recommended filing of an appeal against it. That the file was also went to Assistant Director of the Water Cell of the Appellant for necessary comments, strategic inputs and approvals, who, thereafter sent the file to Deputy Chief Legal Advisor.

9. That case also required examination of ledgers and documents from 2005 onwards apart from involvement and approval of/from multiple departments. Collation of documents took considerable time as well.

Page 3 of 8

10. That the delay is neither willful nor intentional but it is due to the detailed government, procedure and the requirement to have the matter examined by various functionaries at various levels of the government. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, irreparable damage would be suffered by the Appellant if the delay is not condoned.

To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:

"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less."

Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, as the complaint filed by the Appellant was filed under the old Consumer Protection Act. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 27.01.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 27.01.2023 with a delay of 274 days though the Appellant has sought condonation of 260 days delay in filing the appeal.

Page 4 of 8

In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported at AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or

"enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word

"sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context,

"sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any

"sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."

Page 5 of 8

We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported at IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -

"12. ………we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."

We further deem it appropriate to refer to judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 titled as Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -

"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this

Page 6 of 8

Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

On perusal of record before us, Para 3 to Para 10 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the Appellant for the delay caused in filing this appeal. However, there are no cogent reasons given by the Appellant to explain as to why it did not take immediate steps before 25.04.2022. Further, no document was furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention that when the note was received from the Counsel, when it was sent to Senior Law Officer, Deputy Chief Legal Advisor-II, Water Cell, Assistant Director, Water Cell and the approval was received.

Further, though the Appellant has made an attempt to take shelter of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the limitation 28.02.2022 and thereafter for further 90 days, even then there is

Page 7 of 8

delay of 180 days in filing the Appellant. In our considered opinion, the Appellant failed to explain the day-to-day delay and had merely mentioned the event without specifying the dates. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is a government organization and due to the impersonal machinery, the delay occurred in taking various approvals for filing the present appeal. To this argument of the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors.reportedat AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:

"12. …….The claim on account of impersonal machinery andinherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay except

Page 8 of 8

mentioning of events and the reasons mentioned in the application are their internal arrangement. According to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the stipulated period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.

File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal)

President

(Pinki)

Member(Judicial)

DDA v. KUMUD RUSTOGI

Case Summary — Delhi Development Authority v. Kumud Rustogi (IA No.214/2023 in FA No.32/2023)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

DDA v. KUMUD RUSTOGI

Comments