Allahabad High Court
The Secretary, India Council Of ... vs Ravinder Kumar Tyagi on 2 January, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:24-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21298 of 2023
Petitioner :- The Secretary, India Council Of Agricultural Research And Another
Respondent :- Ravinder Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Original Application No. 330/1069 of 2021 (Ravinder Kumar Tyagi vs. UOI and others).
3. The Stamp Reporter has reported latches of 638 days on the date of reporting of the present petition on 15.12.2023. Subsequently, present petition was filed on 18.12.2023.
4. On a pointed query learned counsel for the petitioners submits that latches have been explained in paragraph 15 of the petition, therefore, delay in challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 is not intentional and is liable to be quashed. Paragraph 15 of the petition is quoted as under:-
"15. That due to long departmental procedure the matter has been sent to ICAR head Quarter and after concurrence of Head Quarter it has been decided to challenge the matter on the ground of delay and latches and all these proceedings have taken enough time and there is some delay in challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 which is not intentional and the same is bonafide and therefore the Hon'ble High Court may condone the delay and writ petition may be heard on merits condoning the delay otherwise the petitioners department shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
5. We are not satisfied with the explanation so offered by the petitioner.
6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal 2020 (10) SCC 654, the Special Leave Petition was filed with a delay of 663 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the application seeking condonation of delay, observed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 as under:-
"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:
"27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!
4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents". In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to "bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs".
5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Chaitram Maywade 2020 (10) SCC 654 Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated practice of filing petitions with such huge delay and has observed that these kinds of cases are only 'certificate cases' to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. It was also observed that the costs imposed are to be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the Chaitram (supra) are quote as under:-
"3. We consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the legal Department as it appears that the Department is unable to file appeals within any reasonable period of time much less within limitation. These kinds of excuses, as already recorded in the aforesaid order, are no more admissible in view of the judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. ? (2012) 3 SCC 563.
4. We have also expressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only "certificate cases" to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. We have also recorded the irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and others 2021 SCC Online (SC) 1260 the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order passed by the High Court, where High Court has condoned delay of 1011 days.
9. In view of the law as discussed above, we find that the explanation so offered in paragraph 15 of the petition quoted above is not satisfactory and accordingly present petition stands dismissed on the ground of latches.
Order Date :- 2.1.2024
Lalit Shukla
