Delhi Development Authority vs Ramesh Kumar Budhiraja
2014 Latest Caselaw 804 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          CRL.L.P. No. 4 of 2013

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                 ..... Petitioner
             Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate with
             Mr. R.C. Gauniyal, A.E., DDA.

                          versus

RAMESH KUMAR BUDHIRAJA                  ..... Respondent
           Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                          ORDER

11.02.2014

Crl.L.P. No. 4 of 2013 & Crl.M.A. No. 46 of 2013 (for delay)

1. There is an inordinate delay of 237 days in filing leave to appeal against the order dated 25th August 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 ('ASJ'), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 64 of 2012 and order dated 5th October 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') in Complaint Case No. 216 of 2001 acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Section 14 read with Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957.

2. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has produced before the Court a written synopsis explaining that the Petitioner had wrongly filed the appeal before the Sessions Court on 3rd August 2012 though it ought to have been filed before this Court

and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') by an order dated 25th August 2012 dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. He refers to paras 2, 3 and 4 of the delay application by way of explanation for the further delay in the filing of the present leave petition on 27th November 2012. He referred to the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court:

(i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107;

(ii) State of J& K v. Mohd. Masqbool Sofi (2009) 15 SCC 177;

(iii) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008 Crl.L.J. 4355;

(iv) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123;

(v) Union of India v. Giani (2011) 11 SCC 480;

(vi) State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132;

(vii) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752;

(viii) State v. Vijender Singh 133 (2006) DLT 179 (DB).

3. The legal position as regards the condonation of delay in matters filed by the State and its instrumentalities has been explained by the Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563. Para 29 of the said judgment reads as under:

"29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

4. In State of Rajasthan v. Bal Kishan Mathur 2014 (1) SCC 592, the Supreme Court reiterated that the condonation of delay cannot be a matter of course and that the State cannot claim any preferential or special treatment. Only where there has been no gross negligence or a deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides that a liberal view has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. The Court referred to the decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited., where it was held that "the 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."

5. Most recently in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav [decision dated 10th January 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 882 of 2014] while declining to condone the delay of 481 days in filing a special leave petition, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited.

6. Tested on the parameters explained by the Supreme Court in the above decisions, the Court finds the explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the leave petition to be unsatisfactory and inadequate. It is, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the criminal leave petition.

7. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 Rk