Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority & ... vs M/S. Budhiraja Electricals on 10 January, 2018
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th January, 2018
+ RFA 962/2016
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate.
versus
M/S. BUDHIRAJA ELECTRICALS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 45709/2016 (Condonation of Delay)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The impugned order is dated 4th February, 2016. The appeal was filed on 2nd
December, 2016. There is a huge delay of about 187 days in filing of the
appeal. A perusal of the application shows that the reasons for the delay is
merely that the legal department did not take a decision to file the appeal
and thereafter, time was consumed by the Appellant's counsel for drafting
and filing of the appeal.
2. These reasons do not justify condonation of such a huge delay as held
in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3
SCC 563 (hereinafter. 'Living Media'), where the Supreme Court
categorically held as under:
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of condonation of delay when there was no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona
fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in
the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot
take advantage of various earlier decisions. 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.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all
government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities and 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 the
few.
30. 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.
3. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of U.P.
through Exe. Engineer v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 and State
of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Bal Kishan Mathur & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 592. This
Court in various judgments has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Living Media (supra), and refused to condone the delay due to the lack of
adequate explanation being offered by various Government agencies. Thus,
the law on condonation of delay is quite well settled, even in respect of
Government Authorities. In this view of the matter, CM Application
45709/2016 is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
RFA 962/2016 & CM APPL. 45680/2016
4. In view of the fact that delay in filing the appeal has not been
condoned, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed
along with all pending applications. The amount of Rs. 7,89,728/-, deposited
by the Appellant vide order dated 8th December, 2016 is directed to be
released in favour of the Respondent along with any interest which may
have accrued thereon.
5. The date fixed before the Registrar i.e. 7th February, 2018 stands
cancelled.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Judge
JANUARY 10, 2018/j
