The Chief Executive Officer, ... vs Mr. Laxman Ladkya Ahadi And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 10708 Bom

                                                                    1-ia-1808-2021.doc




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1808 OF 2021
                                   IN
                     REVIEW PETITION NO.41 OF 2021
                                   IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO.13100 OF 2017

The Chief Executive Offcee,
Zilla Paeishad, Palghae and Anothee                      ...Applicants
            vs.
Laxman Ladkya Ahadi and Othees                           ...Respondents

Me. Ajit Savagave, foe the Applicants
Ms. Madhuei Ayyapan i/b. Talekae & Associates, foe Respt.No. 1.
Me. R.P. Kadam, AGP foe the Respondent No. 2- State.

                          CORAM :     K.K. TATED &
                                      N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                         DATE :       AUGUST 10, 2021


P.C.:

1. The applicants- oeiginal eespondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Civil

Weit Petition No. 13100 of 2017 have peefeeeed this application foe

condonation of 725 days delay in seeking eeview of the oedee dated

3ed July, 2019 passed by a Division Bench (Coeam: R.M. Boede and

N.J. Jamadae, JJ.) in the said Weit Petition.

2. The eespondent No. 1 Laxman Ahadi had peefeeeed the said

Weit Petition on account of eefusal of the applicants to

Vishal Parekar 1/9

1-ia-1808-2021.doc

accommodate him as a peimaey teachee in the school opeeated by

the applicants though he had woeked as voluntaey teachee since

13th June, 2006 to July, 2008 and was eligible to be appointed as

a paea teachee in accoedance with the Goveenment Resolution

dated 31st July, 2009. The Division Bench found that the

contention of the applicants that the eespondent himself had

abandoned the seevice in June, 2008 was not woethy of

acceptance and thus dieected the applicants to appoint the

petitionee as paea-teachee by obseeving as undee:

Since the eespondents have not taken any steps foe

implementation of the policy decision in case of the

petitionee, accoeding to us, his eequest foe

accommodation as Paea-Teachee in peimaey school

opeeated by Zilla Paeishad ought to have been consideeed

favoeably. The petitionee is entitled to claim benefts

undee Goveenment Resolution dated 31st July, 2009 and

eespondent - Zilla Paeishad shall appoint the petitionee as

Paea-Teachee in accoedance with guidelines laid down by

the said Goveenment Resolution and it is dieected

accoedingly. The eespondent shall take steps and obseeve

dieectives issued by this Couet as expeditiously as

possible and peefeeably within theee months feom today.

Vishal Parekar                                                                                  2/9




                                                                       1-ia-1808-2021.doc

Rule is made absolute in the afoeesaid teems. Theee will

be no oedee as to costs.

3. The applicants now desiee to seek eeview of the afoeesaid

oedee on the geound that on account of inadveetence Goveenment

Resolution dated 1st Maech, 2014 and coeeigendum theeeto dated

31st Maech, 2015 could not be beought to the notice of the Couet

when the afoeesaid oedee came to be passed. As theee is delay of

725 days, the applicants have taken out this application.

4. In paea 3 of the application foe condonation of delay the

applicants have asceibed myeiad eeasons. It is aveeeed that

consequent to the afoeesaid oedee, guidance was solicited feom the

School Education and Spoets Depaetment. Zilla Paeishad was

advised vide lettee dated 22nd August, 2019 to fle Review Petition.

Theee was change in the offcials. Again advice was sought in the

month of Febeuaey, 2020. Eventually, post discussion and

delibeeation it was decided to seek eeview. Howevee, Review

Petition could not be fled on account of the situation which aeose

due to Covid 19 pandemic. The applicants have an excellent case

on meeits. In the event the delay is not condoned, the applicants

Vishal Parekar 3/9

1-ia-1808-2021.doc

would suffee ieeepaeable loss.

5. We have heaed Me. Ajit Savagave, leaened counsel foe the

applicants and Ms. Madhuei Ayyapan, leaened counsel foe

eespondent No. 1-oeiginal petitionee and Me. Kadam, leaened AGP

foe the State.

6. We have caeefully peeused the aveements in the application

and the mateeial on eecoed.

7. Me. Savagave, leaened counsel foe the applicants made an

eaenest endeavoe to impeess upon the Couet that the applicants

weee peevented by a suffcient cause feom fling the Review

Petition. It was ueged that consideeable time was consumed in

seeking guidance and steps peepaeatoey to fle the eeview

application. Since the applicants have a veey steong case on

meeits, the delay deseeves to be condoned by taking a libeeal view

of the mattee, ueged Me. Savagave.

8. In opposition to this Ms. Madhuei Ayyapan, leaened counsel

foe eespondent No. 1 would submit that the applicants have

Vishal Parekar 4/9

1-ia-1808-2021.doc

peefeeeed this application only aftee the eespondent No. 2 fled

contempt peoceeding, with a view to fuethee depeive the

eespondent No. 2 of the legitimate entitlement. No cause, much

less suffcient one, is made out, submitted Ms. Ayyapan.

9. We have given oue anxious consideeation to the eival

submission. An application foe condonation delay always eeceives

libeeal consideeation. Oedinaeily, the Couets lean in favoue of

condonation of delay so as to advance the cause of substantive

justice. Libeeal consideeation is waeeanted lest peoceduee, which is

a handmade of justice, does not scoee a maech ovee substantive

justice. It is well eecognized that what mattees is not the length of

delay but the suffciency of the cause asceibed. Although no

special indulgence can be extended to the Goveenment, yet,

having eegaed to the impeesonal natuee of the Goveenment

machineey, the peayee foe condonation of delay, wheee the

Goveenment is a paety- applicant often eeceives a moee libeeal

consideeation. Howevee, it does not imply that the applicant is

eelieved of the obligation to make out a suffcient cause foe

condonation of delay.

Vishal Parekar                                                                                5/9




                                                                         1-ia-1808-2021.doc

10. A useful eefeeence in this context can be made to the

judgment of the Supeeme Couet in the case of Amalendu Kumae

Beea and Oes. vs. State of West Bengal 1 wheeein the Supeeme

Couet did not appeove of the condonation of delay, caused on the

paet of the Goveenment as a mattee of couese. It was in teems

obseeved that meeely because the eespondent is the State, delay in

fling the Appeal oe Revision can not be and shall not be

mechanically consideeed and in the absence of "suffcient cause"

delay shall not be condoned.

11. In the case of Postmastee Geneeal and Oes. vs. Living Media

India Limited and Ane.2 the Supeeme Couet obseeved that

condonation of delay can not be claimed on account of impeesonal

machineey and inheeited bueeauceatic methodology of making

seveeal notes. The obseevations of the Supeeme Couet in

paeageaph Nos. 28 and 29 aee insteuctive. They eead as undee:

28] Though we aee conscious of the fact that in a

mattee of condonation of delay when theee was no

geoss negligence oe delibeeate inaction oe lack of

bonafde, a libeeal concession has to be adopted to

1 (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 52.

2 (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563.

Vishal Parekar                                                                       6/9




                                                                                   1-ia-1808-2021.doc

advance substantial justice, we aee of the view that in

the facts and ciecumstances, the Depaetment cannot

take advantage of vaeious eaeliee decisions. The claim

on account of impeesonal machineey and inheeited

bueeauceatic methodology of making seveeal notes

cannot be accepted in view of the modeen technologies

being used and available. The law of limitation

undoubtedly binds eveeybody including the

Goveenment.

29] In oue view, it is the eight time to infoem all the

goveenment bodies, theie agencies and

insteumentalities that unless they have eeasonable and

acceptable explanation foe the delay and theee was

bonafde effoet, theee is no need to accept the usual

explanation that the fle was kept pending foe seveeal

months/yeaes due to consideeable degeee of peocedueal

eed-tape in the peocess. The goveenment depaetments

aee undee a special obligation to ensuee that they

peefoem theie duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be

used as an anticipated beneft foe goveenment

depaetments. The law sheltees eveeyone undee the

Vishal Parekar 7/9

1-ia-1808-2021.doc

same light and should not be swieled foe the beneft of

a few.

12. On the afoeesaid touchstone, we have consideeed the

eeasons sought to be asceibed by the applicants, in the

application. Indisputably, the delay is, by any standaed,

inoedinate. The applicants have made an endevoue to account foe

the delay by peessing into seevice causes offcial as well as

peesonal to the offcials and counsels. Upon seeking guidance

feom the conceened administeative depaetment, post, decision in

Weit Petition No. 13100 of 2017 on 3ed July, 2019, the applicants

weee admittedly advised to fle a Review Petition vide lettee dated

22nd August, 2019. What teanspieed theeeaftee is, howevee,

inexplicable. Once a dieection foe fling a Review Application was

given by the depaetment conceened, we do not appeeciate as to

what was the peopeiety in again seeking guidance of the

Goveenment on 24th Febeuaey, 2020. The eeasons sought to be

asceibed by the applicants to account foe the subsequent delay

aee of no consequences.

13. The claim of the applicants that they weee dieected to fle a

Vishal Parekar 8/9

1-ia-1808-2021.doc

Review Petition as back as 22nd August, 2019 dismantles the

edifce of the claim of the applicants that the mattee was awaiting

consideeation. The delay, on the conteaey, is atteibutable to

complete inaction and latches. It can not be said to be a case

wheee the delay was occasioned on account of decision making

peocess as eegaeds the futuee couese of action. We aee theeefoee of

the view that in the facts of the case, the cause sought to be

assigned by the applicants foe the condonation of delay can not be

said to be suffcient. Inaction on the paet of the applicants is

simply inexplicable.

14. Foe the foeegoing eeasons, we aee peesuaded to hold that the

delay does not deseeve to be condoned. Hence, the following oedee.

                                     ORDER

i]       The application stands dismissed.

ii]      Resultantly, the Review Petition No. 41 of 2021 also stands

dismissed.



             (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                (K.K. TATED, J.)




Vishal Parekar                                                                  9/9