Shri Chander Bhushan Dubey vs Union Of India & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 2940 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      LPA 207/2015 & CMs No.6536/2015 (for condonation of 180 days
       delay in filing the appeal) & 6537/2015 (for condonation of 294 days
       delay in re-filing the appeal)
       SHRI CHANDER BHUSHAN DUBEY                ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
                                   Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                               ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms.
                                      Neha Garg, Adv. for R-1/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                         ORDER

% 13.04.2015

1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 30 th October,

2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C)

No.8920/2007 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was

preferred inter alia to restrain the respondent No.2 Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) from terminating / cancelling, suspending the sales

and supplies of the retail outlet / petrol pump being run on the land of the

appellant at Sheera Bassi, District-Pratapgarh, U.P. and seeking a direction

to the respondent No.2 to grant dealership of the said petrol pump to the

appellant.

2. The appeal is accompanied with applications for condonation of 180

days delay in filing and 294 days delay in re-filing of the appeal. The only

reason given for the delay in filing the appeal is that though the appellant

obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment (presumably shortly

after pronouncement of the judgment) but the same was misplaced and again

the appellant obtained the certified copy and that the appellant did not know

the legal technicalities and law of limitation for filing the appeal and

contacted his present counsel only on 10 th May, 2014 and the counsel now

appearing for the appellant, after going through the file, prepared the appeal.

The application is accompanied with the affidavit of the appellant which

also does not state any further. There is no reason at all for the delay in re-

filing and the only statement made in the application is that the delay is not

intentional and deliberate. Again, the affidavit of the appellant

accompanying the said application does not state any further.

3. As far as the reason given for the delay in filing is concerned, no

particulars have been given as to when the certified copy was obtained and

by whom i.e. by the appellant or by the Advocate who had filed and

conducted the writ petition on his behalf, by whom the certified copy was

misplaced, why the appeal was not filed without the certified copy also as is

always possible in today's day and time, when the judgments of the Court

are instantly loaded on the website of the Court and are available for anyone

to download, what steps were taken thereafter and why the appellant did not

take any immediate steps for obtaining another certified copy.

4. The reason given hardly constitutes a cause much less sufficient cause

for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. As aforesaid, no

reason at all has been given for substantial delay of 294 days in re-filing the

appeal.

5. There is another interesting aspect. Though the appellant is stated to

have contacted his present Advocate for filing the appeal on 10 th May, 2014

but the appeal has come up before this Court for the first time today only,

after nearly eleven months thereof. A perusal of the file shows that though

the memorandum of appeal bears the dates of 26 th / 28th May, 2014 and

though the appeal was filed for the first time on 28 th May, 2014 but was

thereafter repeatedly re-filed on 14th October, 2014, 8th January, 2015, 9th

January, 2015, 24th March, 2015 and 25th March, 2015. There is no

explanation as to why the appeal had to be re-filed repeatedly.

6. The judgment impugned in this appeal is a judgment not only in the

writ petition filed by the appellant but also in W.P.(C) Nos.4963/2007,

8785/2007, 9148/2007 & 8786/2007 and the impugned judgment records

that all the said writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the

appellant entailed common questions of facts and were thus being disposed

of by a common judgment. We have as such enquired from the counsel for

the appellant, whether any appeals were filed against the judgment of

dismissal of the said other writ petitions.

7. The counsel for the appellant informs that LPA No.848/2013

preferred against dismissal of W.P.(C) No.8785/2007 was dismissed vide

judgment dated 19th November, 2013 of the Division Bench. Qua the other

writ petitions dismissed by the same judgment, he states that he has no

instructions, whether any appeal was preferred or not. We however find that

LPA No.858/2013 preferred against dismissal of W.P.(C) No.8786/2007

supra was also dismissed on 19th November, 2013.

8. Once an appeal against the dismissal of a connected writ petition also

stands dismissed by the Division Bench, we see no reason to even issue

notice of the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing of

the appeal on sympathetic grounds also. We may notice that the controversy

subject matter of the writ petition was also adjudicated in IBP Co. Ltd. Vs.

Nand Kumar Bajpai 147 (2008) DLT 764 (DB) and which was followed by

one of us (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J) in Roshan Lal Vs. Union of India

MANU/DE/3998/2011, LPA No.985/2011 preferred whereagainst was

dismissed on 16th December, 2011.

9. We reiterate that the applications do not disclose any ground for

condonation of 180 and 294 days of delay in filing and re-filing of the

appeal.

10. Under the circumstances, the applications for condonation of delay in

filing and re-filing are dismissed and axiomatically the appeal is also

dismissed. We refrain from imposing costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

APRIL 13, 2015 'bs'..