Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Sadanand on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Fresh List
Serial No. 23
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 821 of 2021
(In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22674 of 2003)
State of U.P. and others
...Appellant
Through: Mr. Anand Kumar Ray, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
v/s
Sadanand
...Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Babu, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
1. Present intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order dated August 4, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge. The appeal is delayed by 15 years 26 days. Though an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, but the reasons assigned therein explaining the delay cannot possibly be accepted from the State for filing the appeal after more than a period of 15 years.
2. Hence, we do not find it appropriate to record the grounds stated in the application.
3. Another relevant fact is that the order dated May 1, 2018 has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents passed in Writ-A No. 68253 of 2020 wherein an identical controversy was involved and an order passed by the authority concerned therein declining benefit to the petitioner with reference to the same Government Order dated June 12, 1998 was set aside. The aforesaid order was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated September 30, 2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 30203 of 2019.
4. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants.
5. From the narration of facts, it is evident that there is no application of mind by any of the authority concerned before taking decision to file the appeal in a case after more than 15 years, resulting in unnecessary wastage of time of different officers of the Government and also of this Court.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, deprecating the practice of Government and its authorities of filing the appeals/petitions without caring for the period of limitation prescribed therefor, observed as under:
"2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.
3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red- tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
(emphasis added)
7. The Court, in para-7, further observed:
"7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible."
(emphasis added)
8. In view of above, for non application of mind and causing unnecessary wastage of time of the Government machinery as well as this Court, the authority concerned is burdened with cost of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, 50 per cent, i.e., 50,000/- shall be paid to the respondent by way of demand draft within one month. The rest of the amount shall be deposited by the officer concerned with the U.P. State Legal Services Authority. The amount imposed shall be recovered from the guilty officer(s)/official(s), who have shown non application of mind in filing the present appeal with such an inordinate delay of 15 years.
9. Compliance report about recovery of the cost shall be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of six months. In case of failure, the matter shall be listed before this Court.
10. The appeal, along with delay condonation application, are dismissed in the manner hereinabove.
(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Allahabad
28.10.2021
P.Sri./Manish Himwan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : √Yes/No
