Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vishnubhai Laljibhai Rana on 29 October, 2021
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/CA/1578/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1578 of 2021
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 19771 of 2021
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VISHNUBHAI LALJIBHAI RANA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 29/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)
1. This Civil Application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 741 days in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal which is directed against order dated
02.02.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.4704 of 2015.
2. A perusal of the averments in the application for
condonation of delay reveals that the certified copy of the order
was received by the applicants on 23.02.2018. It is averred that
after receipt of the order, the same was forwarded to the Finance
Department for opinion which was returned with certain
clarification. Thereafter, it was resubmitted to the Finance
Department which directed the applicants to take steps for filing of
Letters Patent Appeal. The said decision was taken in August 2018.
Thereafter, the applicants sent a proposal to the Legal Department
in 2018 which was rejected. It is seemed that the applicants still
persisted on filing the Letters Patent Appeal and thereafter, twice,
the same was resubmitted to the Legal Department. However, it
C/CA/1578/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021
was again returned. Finally, on 22.03.2021, the office of the
Hon'ble Chief Minister granted permission to file the Letters Patent
Appeal. In this factual background, it was averred that the delay as
had occurred is procedural and administrative.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of
Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media
India Limited reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563, has held as
follows :-
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned
were well aware or conversant with the issues
involved including the prescribed period of limitation
for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave
petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they
have a separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent persons
familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of
plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a
question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us. 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 bonafide, 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.
13) 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
C/CA/1578/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/10/2021
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."
4. In the present case, we find that there is no plausible
explanation for passage of such long time except mentioning every
stage of file movement and the decision taken thereafter. It seems
that the department and the persons concerned have not evinced
diligence in prosecuting the matter by taking appropriate steps.
The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Limitation Act,
1963 must receive a reasonable construction and not to condone
the huge delays which have no plausible explanation.
4.1 In the present case, nowhere, it has been stated in the
application as to why the department was not accepting the legal
opinion given by the Government Pleader Office/Legal Department
not to file the Letters Patent Appeal. Only averment in the
application is that the Finance Department insisted that the Letters
Patent Appeal be filed. The said explanation in our view does not
constitute "sufficient cause" so as to condone the gross delay of
741 days as has occurred in the present case.
5. In view of above settled legal position, the delay does
not deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, the present Civil
Application is dismissed. Consequently, the registration of Letters
Patent Appeal and Civil Application for stay filed therein shall be
refused by the Registry.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
