The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Delay can be condoned only if the application gives a satisfactory explanation with regard to the circumstances in which the delay was occasioned. Condonation does not fall as a matter of course, nor can it be taken for granted that delay ought to be condoned in any given situation.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner and then, it was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, which too came to be dismissed by the State Commission on the question of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred before NCDRC along with the application for seeking condonation of delay of 336 days in preferring the appeal. However, it was dismissed on the ground that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the review petition was filed before the state commission which may not have been the appropriate remedy, and even if the time spent between the filing of the review petition and the date when the review petition finally came to be dismissed was to be excluded, yet the application did not satisfactorily explain the delay between the date when the review petition came to be dismissed and the actual date of filing of the appeal before the NCDRC.
It was furthermore observed that A delay may only be condoned if the application provides a thorough justification for the events that led to the delay. It is not always the case that a delay should be condoned, nor should it be assumed that it will be in every instance.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the dismissal of the application by the NCDRC cannot, based upon such an explanation, be said to be perverse.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: Avadhanula Sridhar V. The Sales Manager and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Raghunandan Rao
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 29770 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Turaga MK Praneetha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: J Venkateswara Prasad, M P Kashyap, D Ravi Kiran, Advocate(s)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
