B.N. Sinha, President:
1. This appeal has been directed against order dated 28- 11-90 passed by the District Forum, Patna in complaint case No. 50 of 1989, and it has been filed by the appellant who was the opposite party before the District Forum and hereinafter called the opposite party. The respondent No. 1 was complainant before the District Forum (hereinafter called âthe complainant).
2. The complainant applied for allotment of a M.I.G. Flat at Patna to the Bihar State Housing Board (the O.P. - appellant), a statutory authority constituted under the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 and got his application registered on 12.l2.72 and subsequently he deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 30.6.81 in the prescribed form on the receipt of a booklet from the O.P. which was sent to him after much delay and after several quarries made by the complainant with regard to the registeration of his application and that in the meantime flats were allotted to different persons and the claim of the complainant was completely ignored, and bypassed though the complainant had completed all the formalities which were required to be done for allotment of plots. The opposite party disputed the claim of the complainant and the opposite party was given several opportunities to file necessary papers before the District Forum but the O.P. failed to do so. Ultimately the case was disposed of by the District Forum on 30-11-90 and the present appeal was presented before this Commission against that order on 12.12.91.
3. As this appeal was presented before the Commission much after a month from the date of the impugned order, a petition supported by an affidavit has been filed mentioning the facts due to which according to the appellant the appeal could not be presented before this Commission within the prescribed period. It has been mentioned in the petition that the appellant had no knowledge about the impugned order and after getting knowledge of it, the O.P, immediately applied for the certified copy and that this appeal was presented before this Commission within a month from the dates of the receipt of the certified to be true copy of the order and thus there was sufficient ground for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed period.
4. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) lays down that any person aggreived by the order made by the District Forum may file an appeal against such order before the State Commission within the period of thirty days from the date of the order and it further provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of that period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. Thus under Section 15 of the Act the terminus a quo for the period of limitation runs from the date of order. Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules 1987 (hereinafter called the Rules) lays down that if the appeal is presented after the expiry of the said one month the appellant has to file a petition supported by an affidavit stating the facts indicating that there was sufficient cause for the appellant for not filing the appeal within the period of 30 days from the date of the order. This petition under Rules 8(4) of the Rules was not filed alongwith memo of appeal. The appeal was presented on 21.12.91 whereas the said petition under Rule 8(4) of the Rules could be filed before this Commission on 13.2.92. This itself was sufficient ground for rejecting the memo of appeal. But even on taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the petition, the Commission is not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for presenting this appeal after such inordinate delay.
5. Even if the facts mentioned in the petition are accepted the opposite party - appellant got the knowledge abut the impugned order on 20.9.91 when a notice for violation of the impugned order along with a photo stat copy of a petition of the complainant was received by the O.P. But no action was taken for filing the appeal. Second notice was sent to the O.P. by the District Forum for noncompliance of the impugned order which was received in the office of the appellant on 30.11.91. But even then no action was taken by the appellant for filing this appeal. Petition for certified to be true copy of the impugned order was filed by âthe appellant before the District Forum on 13.12.91. There appears no reason as to why the appellant did not take any Step from 20.9.91 to 13.12.91 for obtaining certified to be true copy of the order concerned. Even if it is accepted that the appeal could be filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge there appears no reason as to why this appeal could not be presented within a month from 20.9.91.
6. The opposite party being an autonomous Board or Corporation cannot claim to be on a different footing than a private party for the purpose of condoning delay under Proviso to Sec. 15 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held in the State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Others (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 7) whether it is Government or a Private Party, the provisions of law applicable are the same, unless the Statute itself makes any distinction. In the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v. Ramashray Prasad Choudhary, AIR 1977 Pat. 272, it has been held that Bihar State Board of Religious Trust was not entitled to any different treatment than a private party.
7. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances relied upon by the opposite party we find not the least merit in the application of condonation and dismiss the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. There is no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.