Delhi High Court
D.D.A. vs M/S Prominent Electrical Works ... on 5 April, 2013
Author: Indermeet Kaur
$~A2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:5th April 2013
+ CM No. 11151/2012(for review) and 11152/2012 (for delay) in
FAO No. 62/1995
D.D.A. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA.
versus
M/S PROMINENT ELECTRICAL
WORKS AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this application (CM No. 11151/2012) the appellant seeks
a review of the order dated 31.10.2011. Alongwith this application, an
application (CM No. 11152/2012) seeking condonation of delay of 180 days
in preferring this review petition has been filed.
2. Notice has been served of the review application as also of the
application for condonation of delay upon the respondent who stood duly
served. None has appeared for the respondent.
3. A perusal of the application seeking condonoation of delay shows that
it is bereft of any particulars. No explanation let alone a justifiable
explanation has been given for the inordinate delay of almost six months in
preferring the review petition. The only explanation tendered in this regard
is contained in para 3 of this application which reads herein as under:-
"3. The said delay is occasioned by the fact that it took time by the
Department to go through the records and detect the error regarding prayer „c‟.
Immediately upon getting to know of the discrepancy, the matter was discussed
within the Department and thereafter with the counsel conducting the matter.
Hence, there was a delay in filing the present application for review."
4. In view of the legal pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 (3) SCC 563,
a government department is not to be treated as a separate entity qua a
private entity. The lethargy of a government department in shifting files
from one table to the other has been held to be no excuse and the intent of
the statute of limitation cannot be ignored; there is no separate law of
limitation for public sector enterprises and public interest is also in
preventing and pursuing stale claims; it has been observed that claim on
account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology
of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern
technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly
binds everybody including the Government. The hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that it is in fact the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have a
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide
effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural
red-tape in the process; the government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for government departments; the law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few.
5. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, such a plea is no more
available to the appellant. CM No. 11152/2013 is without any merit; it is
dismissed. On this ground alone the appeal being time barred is liable to be
dismissed.
6. However, even on the merits the review application is liable to be
dismissed. The case of the appellant before this Court is that vide order
dated 31.01.1995 claim No.1 and claim No. 4 had been remanded back to
the learned Arbitrator and fresh Award dated 18.01.2000 had been
pronounced; up to this point, the counsel for the petitioner has no quarrel.
He further submits that on 31.01.1995, the learned Additional District Judge
had also dealt with the counter claims of the petitioner; counter claim no. 1
had been upheld but counter claim No. 2 had been set aside. Submission
being that this counter claim No. 2 should have been the subject matter of
consideration in the fresh Award and this has not been done so.
7. Admittedly prior to this period this point has never been agitated. At
the time when the order dated 31.01.1995 was passed it was only claim No.
1 and claim No. 4 which had been remanded back to the Arbitrator. There
was no direction qua counter claim No. 2. In this background the question of
review of the order dated 31.10.2011 does not arise as the order dated
31.10.2011 had only dealt with the factum that counter claims No. 1 and 4
which had been remitted back to the arbitrator and fresh Award having been
pronounced thereafter, this petition has become infructuous.
8. Even on merits no ground for a review is made out.
9. This review petition is wholly frivolous; it is accordingly dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 05, 2013
rb
