Ashok Yadav vs The Commissioner Of Police And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1622 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 17.4.2006 by which the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed MA No. 1545/2005. The said application had been filed by the petitioner for condensation of delay in refiling OA No. 260/2004. Petitioner had challenged the dismissal of the original application No. 260/2004 vide orders dated 3.2.2004 in Writ Petition(C) No. 2637/2005. Tribunal had dismissed the OA in liming in the absence of any plausible explanation of delay in refiling the original application.

2. In the High Court, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal with an explanation for delay in refiling the original application before the Tribunal. M.A. No. 1545/2004 was thus, moved by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking condensation of delay in filing the OA. It would be appropriate at this stage to notice that OA itself had been filed on 24.10.2002. Same had been returned with objections. Petitioner, after expiry of seven months, re-filed the OA on 27.5.2003. OA was returned with objections again. Petitioner failed to remove the objections in time and re-filed the OA again after a delay of three months, i.e. on 22.8.2003. The remaining objections were removed by the petitioner when he re-filed the OA on 5.9.2003. The OA still suffered from objections and petitioner was required to remove the same within 30 days. It is here that the petitioner claims that counsel intended to re-file on 20.9.2003 but could not do so due to heavy schedule and he noted the matter for re-filing on 22.9.2003 but could not trace the original application. It is claimed that there was some shifting of the office of the counsel also and the original application was misplaced. The said original application, it is claimed was traced from another file of the petitioner on 26.1.2004. After detaching the same from the said file, he filed the OA along with an application for condensation of delay in re-filing on 29th January, 2006.

3. In these facts, the Tribunal cannot be faulted with for holding that there was no sufficient cause or any explanation for the delay in refiling the application. It would be noticed that there is no explanation for the initial delay in refiling. The delay was seven months and three months, i.e. from 24.10.2002 to 27.5.2003 and 22.8.2003. Petitioner, for the period subsequent to September, 2003, had initially sought to put it on the misplacement of the file during shifting of office which, later on he claims, was on account of attachment of the application with another file.

4. In these circumstances, no plausible explanation is forthcoming. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Kamal Oil & Allied Industries Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2006 (88) DRJ 676 (DB). The cited case is for the proposition that for seeking condensation of delay in refiling, sufficient cause, as is required to be shown for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not required to be shown. Further, that the delay in refiling is not subjected to the same rigorous tests.

5. The cited case is completely distinguishable on facts. In the cited case, objection with regard to the non-serving of an advance copy of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 was not removed by the LRs of petitioner. There were some disputes among the LRs of petitioner No. 1, who were divided into two camps and as such, instructions were not forthcoming to the petitioner's counsel and this could be resolved only after six months.

6. Present is a case simplicitor of a single petitioner, not pursuing the case as noted earlier. There was gross delay in refiling of seven and three months respectively and for that, not even a word of explanation is forthcoming. Subsequently, the story with regard to misplacement of the file and shifting of the office from first floor to the ground floor and thereafter, modified application getting wrongly tagged in another case file, has been put up.

7. In our view, even if a liberal approach is adopted and latitude is given, there is no explanation for this inordinate delay except to hold that the petitioner was callously negligent in prosecution of the case and appears to have been disinterested in the same. If an explanation of this nature is to be accepted, it would amount to negating any time limit of refiling. This apart, we had also put to learned Counsel for the petitioner that he does not appear to have a case on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the charge of intermingling with three unidentified persons for a courtesy on flight No. TG-315 bound to Bangkok and being intercepted by the Inspector In-charge at the Aero-bridge area was not proved. Counsel further attempted to urge that though on leave, petitioner had gone to the Airport to give a message to Head Constable Ashok Kumar.

9. The respondent during the inquiry as well as the disciplinary authority have found the explanation rendered by the petitioner totally unsatisfactory. The petitioner's presence and interception by the Inspector at the Aero-bridge is not in dispute. The explanation given by the petitioner is that he had to give an urgent message to Jagdish Kumar, Constable, for which, he had travelled a distance of over 30 kms. to the Airport. While the said Constable was present in the Control Room, outside the Airport, the message could easily be given to Jagdish Kumar on telephone and there was no occasion for the petitioner to be present near the Aero-bridge.

We find no justification to condone the enormous and gross delay in refiling. Besides, we do not even find it a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction on merits.

The petition is dismissed.