(O&M) v. Manjit Singh Bal & Anr.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner petitioner – Ludhiana Improvement Trust

19.03.2025 Ludhiana Improvement Trust assails order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the National (Annexure P Consumer Disputes Redressal passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby a revision petition Commission by the , whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner challenging challenging order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P 6) passed by the 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the has been State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), has been State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed on grounds of limitation. dismissed on grounds of limitation.

2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that had been allotted a plot measuring 250 respondent No.1 – Manjit Singh Bal had been allotted a plot measuring 250 had been allotted a plot measuring 250 respondent No.1 square yards under ‘550 Acre Expansion Scheme’ square yards oad, under ‘550 Acre Expansion Scheme’ on Ferozepur Road, by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated Ludhiana by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated

14.09.1976. However, subsequently in the year 2007 14.09.1976. However, subsequently a civil suit for specific in the year 2007, a civil suit for specific performance came to be filed by one Jaswinder Singh performance came to be filed by one with regard to plot in Jaswinder Singh with regard to plot in , which came to be dismissed in the year question against respondent No.1, which came to be dismissed in the year , which came to be dismissed in the year question against respondent No.1

2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 the lower Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 SLP filed by Jaswinder Singh came to be dismissed respectively. Even the SLP filed by Jaswinder Singh came to be dismissed respectively. the year 2016. the year 2016.

3. Ludhiana Improvement Trust However, before execution of sale deed, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust However, before execution of sale deed, t However, before execution of sale deed, t (petitioner) construction charges from respondent proceeded to recover non-construction charges from respondent construction charges from respondent 2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/-. 2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/ No.1 pertaining to the period from 1984-2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/ No.1 pertaining to the period from Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a ent Trust (petitioner) consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (petitioner) consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvem consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvem Learned District Consumer Disputes with regard to levy of said charges. Learned District Consumer Disputes Learned District Consumer Disputes with regard to levy of said charges. dismissed the complaint vide order dated Redressal Commission (DCDRC) dismissed the complaint vide order dated dismissed the complaint vide order dated Redressal Commission ( . Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before 23.11.2021 (Annexure P-4). Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before . Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before 23.11.2021 (Annexure P same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 the SCDRC, the same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 the SCDRC (Annexure P-6) and the amount in question i.e. Rs.7,95,798/ (Annexure P was ordered to amount in question i.e. Rs.7,95,798/- was ordered to be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner – Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the

19.03.2025 (Annexure NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated P-9) having been having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was time barred by 276 days. time barred by 276 days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was 9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was 19.03.2025 (Annexure P aims of the Improvement Trust. not so huge so as to decline the legitimate claims of the Improvement Trust. not so huge so as to decline the legitimate cl not so huge so as to decline the legitimate cl It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays Government institutions/large do occur in the case of Government/semi-Government institutions/large do occur in the case of Government/semi do occur in the case of Government/semi VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) ( 3 ) cision offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final decision offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final de offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final de is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been for setting aside the impugned condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed to decide the revision petition on merits. order and for directing the NCDRC to decide the revision petition on merits. to decide the revision petition on merits. order and for directing the NCDRC We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the 6. We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the impugned order order/s. We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be 7. We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the submissions raised on behalf of the matter. submissions raised on behalf of the (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the Ludhiana Improvement Trust that for taking a decision the delay is revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is that for taking a decision the delay is revision petition is because the file has to go through many channels before approval involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval because the file has to go through many channels before approval because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing granted for filing a revision petition Ludhiana revision petition. The petitioner – Ludhiana Improvement Trust being an agency of the State Government is Improvement Trust being having an agency of the State Government is having , thus, sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. We are, thus, sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated

19.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) inasmuch as there is no 19.03.2025 justification for there is no plausible justification for explaining the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition. explaining the delay of days in filing the revision petition.

8. so as to assail the In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not impugned order or if there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not impugned order or there in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in there in the instant case. M/s Garment Craft The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft