The General Manager, Northern ... vs Mr. Vishva Nath Nangia, S/O Sh. ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 359 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the writ petition.

2. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. and Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Major Daljeet Singh and Ors., , court should not take a strict view and delay should be condoned. Counsel for the applicant further submits that petitioner being a Government body, a liberal approach be taken by the court. Law of Limitation remains the same whether it is a government or a private party. What has to be noticed is whether the delay has been caused on account of some procedural matter or on account of the department being too unwieldy. The impugned order having been passed on 22.4.2004, he reasons for condoning the delay has not been explained. If there is a private party before us, we expect delay of each day to be explained so that sufficient cause is shown for not filing the petition in time. In the present case before us, in paragraph five, what to talk of any specific dates, the reasons given are too vague and general. Paragraph five of the application reads as under :

5. That the delay in filing the Petition against the impugned judgment and Order has occurred on account of time taken in the usual official handling in the vast offices of the Petitioner as per details given hereunder:

a) The impugned judgment was passed on 22/4/2004 and the CAT sent its copy later.

b) That thereafter the matter was sent for opinion of the Railway Advocate, and this took some time.

c) That thereafter the opinion of the Railway Advocate was received.

d) That as it is requirement to submit the records of the CAT, the same was being gathered, and as the Railway Advocates panel changed, it became some what difficult to collect the said papers from the ex-Railway Advocates.

e) That for the purposes of obtaining the record of the CAT, necessary application for the issue of the same was preferred in the CAT, however, till date the same has not been supplied.

f) That in the meanwhile the Government decided to appoint new Lawyers and revoked the appointments of earlier Railway Advocates.

g) That after waiting for the Certified copy and not having received them as yet, the matter was assigned to the new Railway Advocate on 6/12/2004

h) That the new Railway Advocate advised the filing of the matter without Certified copy of the record as Certified copy was not necessary.

i) That immediately thereafter necessary steps were directed to be taken for typing out necessary number of copies of the CAT record for filing.

j) That the re-typing of the record took some time, as the typists were preoccupied.

k) That immediately after receiving the typed copies of the CAT record, the matter has been filed.

3. It has not been averred as to when the matter was sent to the Railway Advocate and when the opinion of the Railway Advocate was obtained; when the Railway Panel changed; when the new Advocate was appointed; when the application for certified copies was filed. In our opinion the decision to file the writ petition has not been taken with due diligence by the officers concerned so as to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of this case. The condensation of delay is not a matter of right. The delay has to be properly explained and from the averments made in this application, we do not find any semblance of explanation tendered by the petitioner.

C.M. 557/2005 is dismissed.

W.P.(C) No.710-11/2005

In view of the order passed above, the writ petition stands dismissed.