Article 227 interference with delay-condonation decisions requires perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality.

The respondent’s consumer complaint against the petitioner-contractor was decided ex parte by the District Consumer Forum on 26 July 2019, which directed payment of ₹5,39,000 with interest, compensation and costs, and return of three cheques

The petitioner said it learned of the order through execution proceedings, then filed an appeal with a delay of about 155 days; the State Commission dismissed the appeal as time-barred on 22 April 2022

The National Commission dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 6 February 2024, finding a 456-day delay insufficiently explained

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 227, seeking a fresh hearing of the consumer complaint

The High Court also noted that the writ petition was filed more than two and a half years after the National Commission’s order, without a sufficient explanation for that delay

1. Whether the National Commission’s refusal to condone the delay in filing the revision disclosed a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ petition itself

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: interference is warranted sparingly to correct jurisdictional error, grave dereliction, flagrant violation of fundamental principles, or a perverse finding, and not merely to substitute the High Court’s view for that of the tribunal

The Court also relied on *Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.* for the limits of supervisory review

In considering delay, the National Commission had relied on *Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA*, *Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer*, *Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam*, *Brijesh Kumar v. State of Haryana* and *P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala*

The governing principle applied was that statutory limitation cannot be displaced absent a satisfactorily established sufficient cause

The High Court found that the National Commission had considered and rejected the petitioner’s explanations—lack of knowledge of the State Commission’s order and time taken to arrange documents—giving reasons and applying Supreme Court authority

The petitioner demonstrated no perversity, jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or manifest illegality warranting supervisory intervention; a desire to have the complaint decided on merits did not itself justify overlooking limitation

The petitioner also failed to explain the substantial delay in approaching the High Court

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs