Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Central Tibetan Schools Admin. on 19 December, 2018
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.12.2018
+ LPA 98/2003 & CM Nos. 7856/2016, 37858-37860/2017,
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.D. Windlesh, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL TIBETAN SCHOOLS ADMIN. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Rastogi, Adv. for R-2 to 5,
7, 9, 16, 18 & 19
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 7855/2016 (restoration) and CM No. 7857/2016 (condonation of
delay of 2590 days)
1. This is an application seeking restoration of the writ petition, which
was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.12.2008. The application seeking
restoration is accompanied with an application for condonation of 2590 days
delay in filing the application seeking restoration.
2. The only ground, which has been urged for seeking condonation of
delay is that the counsel appearing in the matter was elevated as a Judge of
this Court and the department was not aware about the peculiar
circumstances. This averment, in our view, is not bonafide as on account of
the fact that the appellant cannot be compared to an illiterate litigant as cases
of the appellant are looked after by the law department with law officers
who monitors the cases.
3. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in length analyzed the law on
condonation of the delay in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.
Katijireported at (1987) 2 SCC 107 held as under
"...The fact that it was the "State" which was seeking
condonation and not a private party was altogether
irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that
all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded
the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-
handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-
motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying
for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on
account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the
matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be
subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic
methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing and
passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to
understand though more difficult to approve. In any event,
the State which represents the collective cause of the
community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The
courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and
philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation
of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same
approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at
hand with the end in view to do even- handed justice on
merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a
decision on merits."
4. In the case of Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. Vs.
Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506 and
categorically held as under: -
"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 bonafide 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. Considering the fact that there
was no proper explanation offered by the Department for
the delay except mentioning of various dates, according
to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such
a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."
5. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors reported at AIR
2010 SC 3043, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as under:-
"The law of limitation is a substantive law and has
definite consequences on the right and obligation of a
party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and
applied appropriately depending on the facts and
circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as
accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of
the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient
cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take
away that right on the mere asking of the applicant,
particularly when the delay is directly a result of
negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must
be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of
justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly
negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will
be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable
right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting
vigilantly. The application filed by the applicants lack in
details. Even the averments made are not correct and ex-
facie lack bona fide. The explanation has to be
reasonable or plausible, so as to persuade the Court to
believe that the explanation rendered is not only true, but
is worthy of exercising judicial discretion in favour of the
applicant. If it does not specify any of the enunciated
ingredients of judicial pronouncements, then the
application should be dismissed."
6. The LPA was filed in the year 2003:Thereafter, it was listed from
time to time.Thus, in view of the settled principle of law discussed
hereinabove, we are not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the
applicant either in terms of seeking restoration of the appeal or condonation
in filing the application for restoration.
7. Accordingly, we find no ground to allow the present applications.
Both the applications are thus dismissed.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
DECEMBER 19, 2018 //PB JYOTI SINGH, J
