Enforcement Directorate vs Devashish Bhattacharya
2010 Latest Caselaw 4535 Del

                                                                                    #23
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA 638/2009

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr. Atul Nanda, CGSC with
                           Ms. Raneeza Hakeem, Advocate
            versus

DEVASHISH BHATTACHARYA                                ..... Respondent
                Through                         Mr. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal,
                                                Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj
                                                Singh, Advocates

                                     Reserved on: 23rd September, 2010

%                                    Date of Decision : 27th September, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.


                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM 17900/2009

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment dated 21st April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal was accompanied by the present application seeking

condonation of delay of forty two days in filing the appeal.

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 18th December,

2009, the Division Bench directed issuance of notice on the appeal as

well as on the application for condonation of delay and in the

meantime, stay of the impugned judgment was granted. Subsequently,

when the matter was taken up for hearing on 17th May, 2010, this Court

directed the learned Additional Solicitor General of India to file a

detailed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the present appeal.

The additional affidavit has been filed and the relevant portion of the

same reads as under :-

"3. I say that a certified copy of the impugned order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge was received on 29.4.2009. It is humbly submitted that as with Government departments and instrumentalities, the decision to challenge an order and avail of the remedy of an appeal does not rest on single individual officer but the same is require to be decided on the basis of deep examination and long deliberation at various levels of the department/government and often with reference and consultation with the Legal Section /law officers of the department. In order to examine the matter at length the original records of the case are also required to be consulted, which further consume time.

4. In keeping with such process, the impugned order and the relevant file was placed before the competent authority for the purpose of examination and for taking a decision in the matter. The decision to file an Letters Patent Appeal was taken and communicated to Delhi Zonal office of Directorate of Enforcement (the appellant) on 17.6.2009 during summer vacation and vide letter dt. 29.6.2009 the panel counsel was requested to file the LPA.

5. The said appeal was prepared by the panel counsel and was vetted by the Ld. Additional Solicitor General. Thereafter the present appeal came to be filed before this Hon'ble Court on 10.7.2009."

3. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, learned senior counsel for

respondent submitted that the aforesaid affidavit did not disclose any

cause for condonation of delay. He further submitted that the said

affidavit only discloses as to how the file has moved from one

government officer to another. In this connection, Mr. Aggarwal

placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental

Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development

Corporation and Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 459; Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by

Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., (2008) 11 JT

596; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers

(Muster Roll) & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 224. Mr. Aggarwal pointed out

that in the said cases, the Apex Court had refused to condone the delay

in filing the appeal.

4. Per contra, Mr. Atul Nanda, learned standing counsel for Union

of India submitted that the additional affidavit disclosed sufficient

cause for condonation of delay. He further submitted that in the

absence of mala fides or deliberate delay, the Courts have normally

been condoning delay. He also pointed out that the Apex Court in

numerous cases had condoned „large delays‟ on the part of Union of

India. In this connection, he placed reliance upon Nagaland Vs. Lipok

AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani

& Ors,. AIR 1996 SC 1623; N. Balkrishan Vs. N. Krishnamurthi,

(1998) 7 SCC 123; Shankarrao Vs. Chandrasenkunwar, AIR 1987 SC

1726, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in

AIR 1987 SC 1353; and O.P. Kathpalia Vs. Lakhmir Singh (dead) &

Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1744.

5. Having heard both the parties at length and having perused the

judgments cited at the bar, we are of the view that the law of limitation

is founded on public policy and the said law is equally applicable to

both citizens and governmental authorities. Undoubtedly, the law of

limitation prescribes a period within which a legal injury can be

redressed, but the Courts have the power to condone the delay if

sufficient cause is shown for not filing the petition within the stipulated

time. The expression "sufficient cause" is wide enough to enable the

Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the

ends of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with

the applications for condonation of delay, but the general approach has

been that where the petitioner has offered any plausible/tangible

explanation for delay, the Courts have condoned the same.

6. Moreover, in matters of delay, the State and its instrumentalities

are entitled to a certain amount of latitude as the State represents

collective cause of the community and decisions are taken by the

government officers at different levels.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid approach, we are of the opinion

that as, the delay in the present case is not "extra-ordinary long" and as,

the appellant has offered a plausible/acceptable explanation for the said

delay, the same needs to be condoned. Consequently, sufficient cause

having been shown, the application is allowed and delay in filing the

present appeal is condoned.

LPA 638/2009

As we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, Registry is

directed to list the matter for hearing on 06th December, 2010.

Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the

next date of hearing.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 rn