Order: (Per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3545 AP

                                         1




            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                        and
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
                              I.A.No.2 of 2023
                                  in / and
                        WRIT APPEAL No.465 of 2023

ORDER: (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

            This       Interlocutory    Application   is   filed   seeking

condonation of delay of 1636 days in filing the Writ Appeal.

            2)     A counter affidavit was filed opposing the said

application. Therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing.

            3)     This Court has heard Sri M. Solomon Raju,

learned standing counsel for the petitioner, who argued the

matter at length. It is his contention that the delay occurred

as a cumulative result of the factors which are mentioned in

paragraphs 6 to 8 of the affidavit. It is his contention that

due to various factors, which are described in these

paragraphs, the delay occurred.                   He relies upon the

judgments              reported    in    N.    Balakrishnan        v   M.

Krishnamurthy1; the judgment in G. Ramegowda, Major;

Basavalingappa v Special Land Acquisition Officer,


1
    LAW (SC) 1998 97
                                             2




Bangalore2 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of Postmaster General and Others v

Living Media India Limited and Another3. The gist of his

contention is that in matters of condonation of delay,

particularly relating to Government, public interest should

be kept in mind, because if the delay is not condoned it is

the public interest that suffers. He also points out that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India more than once recognized

the fact that the procedural delays occur in case of filing of

appeals by the State.                 He points out on the merits of the

matter that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India support the case of the writ petitioner and the delay

should be condoned.

            4)     In reply, Sri Vinod K Reddy argues the matter on

behalf of the respondents.                  He contends that there is no

explanation at all for inordinate delay and that the causes

mentioned in the affidavit are totally incorrect. He submits

that from January, 2019 the High Court has been

functioning in Vijayawada and that during the Covid period

(1988) 2 SCC 142 = LAWS (SC) 1988 33

(2012) 3 SCC 563

also the Courts were functioning through virtual mode. It is

his contention that right from day one, even during the Covid

period, the matters were taken up on online method.

Therefore, the reasons assigned for the delay are not at all

relevant. According to the learned counsel since it is the A.P.

State Road Transport Corporation, which is before this

Court, and the affidavit is sworn by the Law Officer of the

RTC, therefore, he very seriously and strenuously opposed

the application for condonation of delay and the reasons like

State Elections etc., being pressed into service. He also

submits that the submissions made on the merits of the

matter in the appeal cannot be a ground to condone the

delay.

5) This Court has considered the submissions made.

Normally a very lenient view is being taken in matters of this

nature, particularly where State and its instrumentalities are

filing the appeals. It is a fact that the State machinery moves

at its own pace and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

on more than one occasion recognized the need to take a

lenient view when State and State instrumentalities are

involved, particularly in condonation of delay. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has clearly said even in the judgment

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner due

recognition must be given to the limitations inherent in the

Government way of functioning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India has also held that sufficient cause should be shown;

and that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal

construction so as to advance substantial justice.

6) The third citation relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is well known case of Postmaster

General (3 supra), wherein the entire law on the subject has

also been considered. Sri M. Solomon Raju with his usual

passion argues that this is a fit case for the Court to condone

the delay in filing the Writ Appeal on this basis.

7) The law on the subject is not in doubt. It is true

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given certain

amount of latitude to cases in which the Government / State

and State instrumentalities are involved, but at the same

time the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also said the

following (G.Ramegowda case - 2 supra):

"6. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it."

8) Even in the case of Postmaster General (3

supra) the Hon'ble Supreme of India considered the

Collector v Katiji4 and the later case of Bhag Singh v

Major Daljeet Singh5. A detailed better affidavit was also

filed in that case. In paragraph 20 of the Judgment the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India extracted the entire

chronology starting from 11.09.2009 till 10.02.2011. The

delay is 427 days before the Supreme Court. In paragraph

22 of this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

considered the judgment of CWT v Amateur Riders Club6

(1987) 2 SCC 107

1987 Supp SCC 685

1994 Supp (2) SCC 603

where there is a delay of 264 days and in paragraph 22 the

following extract is given.

"After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus: (SCC p. 604, para 3) "3. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that the Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest."

9) Ultimately, in paragraph 28 (Postmaster General

case 3 supra) the following was held:

"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 bona fides, 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."

10) The delay was ultimately not condoned and in

paragraph 30 it was held that no proper explanation was

given.

11) If the present affidavit is examined against the

backdrop of the case law and facts including Postmaster

General case it is clear that the affidavit suffers from a lack

of material particulars. The mere fact that there was an

election in the State of Andhra Pradesh and a change of

Government should not and will not affect the functioning of

the State Road Transport Corporation, which is the

appellant. No supporting affidavits are filed in support of the

submissions of the learned standing counsel. No data or

dates are given for the various changes referred to in the

affidavit. The details of inter se correspondence or the

enquiries made by the officers with the standing counsel is

also not placed. If paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of this affidavit are

viewed in contra distinction to the affidavit reproduced by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 20 of the

judgment in Postmaster General. It is clear that there is

absolutely no clarity nor is there any chronology. Even the

chronology of the dates mentioned in the case of Postmaster

General in paragraph 20 was held to be insufficient by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is also important to note

that in the course of submissions made it is brought out that

CC No.961/2019 was filed against the non-implementation

of the order passed in W.P.No.13589 of 2004, and the

contempt case is also contested. It is also said that the

respondents was reinstated into service in view of the

contempt case.

12) Therefore, whatever be the inherent merits of the

case and his sister's case etc., in view of the objection raised,

the vehement opposition coupled with the fact that the delay

is not sufficiently explained, this Court has to dismiss the

application for condonation of delay.

13) Accordingly. I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed.

Consequently, the Writ Appeal is rejected. This Court places

on record its appreciation for the manner in which the

counsel for the petitioner argued the matter and tried to

substantiate the unsubstantiable and tried to justify the

unjustifiable. No costs.

14) Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall

also stand dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

_________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J Date:19.07.2023.

Ssv