Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sainik Cooperative House Building ... vs Avtar Singh on 28 October, 2024
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Chief Justice, Tashi Rabstan
Sr. No. 10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 34/2023
CM Nos. 6137/2023 &
61385/2023
Sainik Cooperative House Building Soceity ..... Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Ltd. Jammu (Sainik Colony)
Through its Secretary Rattan Lal Age 66
years, S/O Sh. Inder Lal R/O Sainik Colony,
Jammu.
Through: Mr. K. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate.
Vs
1. Avtar Singh ..... Respondent(s)
S/O Ajit Singh
R/O H. No. 55-A, Sector 4 Nanak Nagar
Jammu.
2. Chairman Sainik Cooperative House
Building Society Sainik Colony Jammu.
Through: Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
28.10.2024
TASHI RABSTAN, CJ:
1. This is a condonation of delay application in filing the appeal.
2. The delay sought to be condoned is of 1496 days.
3. The reason for such huge delay is the abrogation of Article 370 in
August 2019. According to the applicant, due to coming into force of the
reorganization Act, 2019, there was no forum to file an appeal.
4. The applicant also attributed the delay to COVID-19 pandemic.
5. One of the grounds urged in the application is that since consumer
courts were not in existence, as such, the appeal could not be filed in time.
6. On the other hand, objections have been filed to the delay condonation
application on behalf of respondent No.1.
7. It is stated in the objections that application for condonation of delay
is not maintainable. The primary reason for the application to be not
maintainable, according to the respondents, is that it is filed on vague grounds.
8. It is averred in the objections that the appellant was aware of the
passing of the final order/judgment dated 03.05.2019 of J&K State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu as he was represented before the
Commission. Despite being aware, he did not chose to challenge the judgment
for almost 04 years and 95 days, and after lapse of aforesaid period, the
appellant has presented the present appeal along with application for
condonation of delay.
9. It is further averred in the objections filed on behalf of respondent
no.1 that appeal against the order of the State Commission is maintainable only
before this High Court, so the contention of the applicant that there was no
forum available to the appellant for filing the appeal sans any footing.
10. Respondent No.1 in his objections addressing the ground of COVID-
19 period as cause for delay has averred that even if the period of COVID-19
pandemic is ignored, still the remaining time period of almost 600 days is not
explained let alone sufficiently explained in the application seeking condonation
of delay.
11. The ground taken by the appellant in his application that he was
oblivious of the passing of the order dated 03.05.2019 is false ground as
according to the respondent no.1, the impugned order has been passed in
presence of the learned counsel representing the appellant. Lastly, it is prayed by
the respondents that the application for condonation of delay be dismissed being
time barred.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
13. There is a huge delay of 1496 days in filing the appeal. The cause
shown in the application occasioning such mammoth delay is not sufficiently
explained, rather the applicant seeks condonation of delay by projecting vague
grounds.
14. The star ground projected by the applicant seeking condonation of
delay is the closure of the consumer courts in view of abrogation of Article 370
of the Constitution of India. This is no ground at all as the appeal against the
order passed by the State Commission is maintainable only before this court
under Section 17 of the J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 and not in other
forums.
15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary
No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin
& Ors., on 04.02.2021 on account of delay, observed as under:-
"We have repeatedly being counselling through our
orders various Government departments, State
Governments and other public authorities that they
must learn to file appeals in time and set their
house in order so far as the legal department is
concerned, more so as technology assists them. This
appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs
having been imposed in number of matters with the
direction to recover it from the officers responsible
for the delay as we are of the view that these
officers must be made accountable. It has not had
any salutary effect and that the present matter
should have been brought up, really takes the cake!
The aforesaid itself shows the casual
manner in which the petitioner has approached this
Court without any cogent or plausible ground for
condonation of delay. In fact, other than the
lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there
is nothing which has been put on record. We have
repeatedly discouraged State Governments and
public authorities in adopting an approach that
they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when
they please ignoring the period of limitation
prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation
statute does not apply to them. In this behalf,
suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C]
Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and
The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda
Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided
on 11.01.2021].........................".
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observations made
hereinabove and the settled law position, we are not satisfied with the
explanation given by the applicant/appellant for condoning the delay. The
application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
17. As a result thereof, the accompanied appeal i.e. MA No.34/2023 is
also rejected along with connecting CMs, if any.
( (MA Chowdhary) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
28.10.2024
Raj Kumar
