Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sanjay & Ors. on 22 March, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 22nd March, 2017
+ LPA 138/2017 & CM No.7656/2017 (delay in filing)
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..........Appellant
Versus
SANJAY & ORS. ......Respondents
+ LPA 139/2017 & CM No.7664/2017 (delay in filing)
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..........Appellant
Versus
DHAN RAJ & ANR. ......Respondents
Present: Mr. B. Mahapatra, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondents.
CORAM
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
JUDGMENT
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent in
W.P.(C)No.8636/2016 and W.P(C) No. 8566/2016 is the appellant
before us.
2. Though the said petitions were disposed of by separate orders,
since both the petitions involve common questions of fact and law
they are heard and decided together.
3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there is a delay of 104
days in filing LPA No.138/2017 and there is a delay of 108 days in
filing LPA No.139/2017. The only explanation offered in the
applications is that the delay was on account of follow up of long
administrative procedures in filing the appeals. Though it is pleaded
that the delay was unintentional, apparently, the appellant was not
diligent in pursuing the proceedings and the entire approach appears to
be extremely casual.
4. Law relating to delay in filing appeals by the Government
Departments/ Public Authorities has been well settled by the Apex
Court. In this context reliance is placed on the case of Office of The
Chief Post Master General and Ors.Vs .Living Media India Ltd. and
Anr: AIR 2012 SC 1506 wherein it was held as under:
"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.
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 Government departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few..."
5. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme
Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav :(2014)
2 SCC 422. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are
unable to hold that the explanation offered by the appellant can be
construed as sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. As
observed by the Supreme Court condonation of delay is an exception
and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government
departments. Since there appears to be no bonafide effort on the part
of the appellant, we are of the view that the matter does not call for
liberal attitude for condonation of the delay.
6. Even on merits of the case, we do not find any justifiable reason
to interfere with the orders under appeal.
7. The material available on record shows that the respondents
herein/writ petitioners made applications for allotment of an alternate
plot in the year 2003 in terms of the scheme. Long thereafter, in the
year 2015 their applications were rejected as time barred on the
ground that the applications were made beyond the prescribed time of
one year. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed
W.Ps.(C) No.8636/2016 and 8566/2016 respectively. The learned
Single Judge found that in W.P.(C) No.8566/2016 there was delay of
7 days and in W.P.(C) No.8636/2016 there was delay of 4 days in
making the application for alternative plot. The learned Single Judge
was, therefore, of the view that the negligible delay of 4 days and 7
days should not come in the way of considering their claims on merits.
Accordingly by the orders under appeal, the rejection orders were set
aside and the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to
consider the applications of the writ petitioners on merits.
8. The said orders, in our considered opinion, warrant no
interference on any ground whatsoever.
9. It may be true that the long delay in making the application
under the Scheme is a factor to draw an inference that there is no
actual need of the alternative plot, however, it cannot be held that all
the applications which are made beyond the period prescribed in the
Public Notice shall be rejected as barred by limitation.
10. Hence, we are in consonance with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.
11. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 22, 2017
gr/'anb'
