1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 14.07.2009, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1204 of 2003, arising out of the Order dated 03.03.2003, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lakhimpur-Kheri (for short the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 220 of 1998.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/13658/2025 as well as on the Memorandum of Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing of the present petition was caused for the reason that the petitioner did not receive the certified copy of the impugned order dated 14.07.2009 and 27.01.2010 from the office of the learned State Commission. Even the learned counsel of the petitioner did not appear before the learned State Commission on the date fixed. The petitioner came to know about the orders only when the application was received under Right to Information Act, moved by the complainant, asking about the payment. On enquiry, it was found that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the concerned official did not inform about the dismissal of appeal to the competent authorities. Necessary punitive action has been taken against the erring official. The delay is neither intentional nor with ulterior motive. Hence the delay may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 5832 days in filing of the present revision petition, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The impugned order was passed on 14.07.2009 and the Review Application filed against that order, was dismissed on 27.01.2010. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not know about the passing of the impugned order dated 14.07.2009, is not tenable as the filing of the Review Application itself shows that the petitioner was aware of the impugned order dated 14.07.2009.

6. It is a case where the respondent / complainant appeared in High School Examination as a private candidate. Her result was withheld by the petitioners on the pretext that she did not appear in one of the subject. The petitioner established that she appeared in all the subjects and after that her result was kept pending for a long period of three years. The complainant filed the complaint before the learned District Forum and the District Forum allowed her complaint and granted her compensation for mental agony and loss suffered. The appeal against the order of the learned District Forum was also dismissed by the learned State Commission and the order of the District Forum was upheld vide impugned order dated 14.07.2009.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner has come before this Commission with a delay of about 15 years and 6 months.

8. The petitioner has relied upon M/s. Sivashakthi Builders, Hyderabad & Anr. Vs. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad & Ors. 2009 SCC Online AP 38: AIR 2009 AP 84 and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 8183-8184 of 2013 decided on 13.09.2013.

9. In the considered opinion of this Bench, the reasons given in the application for condonation of such a huge delay are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone the delay. Such a huge delay cannot be condoned, merely for the reason that the Petitioner is a Government department. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

                          "261. .......Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude."

10. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011) decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

                          "12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly bids everybody including the Government."

11. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

12. In the light of above discussion, there appears no reason to condone such a huge delay. Otherwise also, there is no merit in the instant petition, as concurrent findings are there of both the foras below. The petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition deserves dismissal as time-barred as also on merits. Dismissed accordingly.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room.