Anjani Kumar - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 7.12.2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jhansi, whereby the delay in entertaining the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been condoned, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced below, the applicant should have atleast stated the cause of delay on an affidavit. That having not been done, the application for condonation deserves to be dismissed. The provisions of Section 24A of the aforesaid Act, reads as follows : "Limitation period.-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period : Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay." It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case, no reason whatsoever has been assigned for the conclusion arrived at that the delay condoned as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 24A of the Act. So far as the first ground is concerned, no provision has been cited that the application for condonation must contain an affidavit. So far as the second contention is concerned. I find that respondent No. 2 has dealt with the application and objections in several pages containing reasons. In this view of the matter, both the contentions advanced by the petitioner deserve to be dismissed. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down in Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496 (SC), the matter should be heard and decided on merits.
(3.) IN view of the above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. INterim order, if any, stands vacated.;