Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Inderjit Kaur on 9 December, 2009
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
FAO. No.224/2009 & CM Nos. 9884-85/2009
% Judgment reserved on: 04th December, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 09th December, 2009
Union of India,
Through;
The General Manger,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
....Appellant
Through: Mr. H. K. Bajpai, proxy counsel for
Mr. V. S. R. Krishnan, Adv.
Versus
Smt. Inderjit Kaur,
R/o H. No. WZ-283/184,
Maddiwali Gali,
Bishnu Garden,
New Delhi.
....Respondent.
Through: Nemo
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
FAO No.224/2009 Page 1 of 5
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present appeal has been filed by Union of India against judgment dated
30th August, 2007, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal Delhi (for short as
„Tribunal‟).
2. Vide impugned judgment, respondent was awarded compensation
amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) due to death of her husband,
who died in untoward incident.
3. Along with appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 504 days
has also been filed.
4. Present appeal was filed on 18th April, 2009. It came up for hearing for
first time on 22nd July, 2009. On that day, Sh. H. K. Bajpai, Advocate appeared on
behalf of appellant and stated that Sh. V.S.R. Krishnan, Advocate, is out of station
and sought adjournment. Matter was adjourned to 8th October, 2009.
5. On 8th October, 2009, again Sh. H. K. Bajpai appeared as proxy counsel
and stated that Sh. V.S.R. Krishnan, Advocate for appellant is out of station and
sought adjournment. Matter was accordingly adjourned to 4th December, 2009. It
was also noted that no further adjournment shall be granted.
6. On 4th December, 2009, again Sh. H. K. Bajpai, appeared as proxy
counsel. At his request, matter was passed over on the ground that Sh. V. S. R.
Krishnan, arguing counsel for appellant is busy in Central Administrative
Tribunal. After pass over, matter was taken up at 12.00 P.M. On second call,
none was present on behalf of appellant. Since arguing counsel never appeared
after filing of the appeal, judgment was reserved.
7. As there is delay of 504 days in filing of the appeal, appellant has to satisfy
as to whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay or not.
8. As per averments made in the application for condonation of delay, on
receipt of impugned order from Tribunal, concerned opinions were taken from
respective persons as is the vogue in Railway Departments. The matter was
examined in the office of appellant in consultation with legal advisers and it was
later on decided to challenge the impugned order by way of First Appeal against
Order (FAO). The writ petition was accordingly modified and refiled in the form
of FAO.
9. It is stated that in this process, there has been some delay in listing of the
present FAO. This delay is attributable to challenge of the impugned order
through a writ petition rather than through the present appeal. The delay was also
occasioned due to the fact that before challenge to the impugned order, appellant
being a Government Organisation, various approvals have to be taken, before a
decision could be taken. Hence, there is delay of 504 days in filing this appeal.
10. There is nothing on record to show that initially, appellant drafted/filed
any writ petition, which was later on modified and refiled in the form of First
Appeal against Order (FAO). Application for condonation of delay is absolutely
vague and unclear. There is no mention of any dates whatsoever. It has nowhere
been specified as to what were the formalities and approvals which caused the
delay and which were the various authorities concerned in this matter. No
sufficient cause for this delay has been mentioned at all, in the entire application.
11. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court
361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even
after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not
entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a
matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a
condition precedent for the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5.
If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has
to be done; the application for condoning delay has
to be dismissed on that ground alone."
12. It is very easy to take a vague plea with regard to various approvals which
are required by a Government Organisation. However, merely pleading vague
defence will not serve the purpose. Appellant has to show that it had been diligent
while pursuing the case.
13. In R. B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhvaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has
been observed;
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has
to examine whether delay in filing the special leave
petition stands properly explained. This is the basic
test which needs to be applied. The true guide is
whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable
diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition".
14. No sufficient ground is at all made out for condonation of delay. Present
application for condonation of delay, being without any cogent reason is not
maintainable. Consequently, appeal is also not maintainable.
15. Present appeal and application for condonation of delay are dismissed with
costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
16. Appellant is directed to deposit the costs, with Registrar General of this
Court, within four weeks from today, failing which Registrar General shall
recover the same in accordance with law.
+CM No.9884/2009
*
17. Dismissed, being infructuous.
18. List for compliance on 12th January, 2010.
9th December, 2009 V.B. GUPTA, J.
ab
