Delhi Transport Corporation ... vs Uma Sankar And The Presiding ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 363 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This appeal has been filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner as the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than one year and eight months. In that writ petition neither the application for condensation of delay nor any averment in the writ petition itself was made explaining the inordinate delay by the petitioner. Ms. Saroj Bidwat, learned counsel fore the appellant has contended that no limitation applies to the writ petitions. She has also contended that the appellant being public authority, normally it takes time to decide the matter for filing an appeal as the decision has to be taken by various departments. She has also contended that delay has been explained in the grounds in this appeal. It is true that limitation act as such is not applicable to proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but it is to be borne in mind that when a person invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, he has to come with promptitude. It is not expected that a public authority or instrumentality of the state will come to the court as and when it likes without even explaining the reasons which have detained it from filing the appeal, review or other petition, specially when a vested right is created in favor of the persons in whose favor the verdict of the Court had gone. The justice delivery system in this country is suffering on account of the attitude shown by the public authorities Because of such lethargic attitude the proceedings are neither filed nor contested in time thereby adding to the backlog. Time has come when the department concerned should take prompt steps in filing the petitions or appeals. From the grounds which have been taken to explain the delay in this appeal, one fails to understand why instructions to the counsel were given after almost one year from 1st February, 2001, when the award was given in favor of the respondent. We could have condoned even that delay but there is no explanation in the grounds as mentioned in the appeal as to what were the reasons for the appellant to take one year for reaching a decision to file the appeal.

We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.