Chairman Gujarat Pollution ... vs Suresh Ambalal Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 4229 Guj

     C/CA/1293/2020                                 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1293 of 2020

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 8200 of 2020

==========================================================
          CHAIRMAN GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
                            Versus
                    SURESH AMBALAL PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Applicant-State.
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                Date : 19/04/2022

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This Civil Application has been filed by the applicants praying for condonation of delay of 59 days in challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned 18th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 633 of 1998.

2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Soaham Joshi submitted that the copy of judgment and decree was received on 24.10.2019 and thereafter the certified copy was applied for the R&P on 01.01.2020 which was received on 29.01.2020, and after following the necessary procedure for appointing the counsel and drafting the

C/CA/1293/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022

appeal and calling upon the documents to support the appeal and for auxiliary purposes the delay has been caused which was beyond the control of the applicants; thus urged to condone the delay.

3. Ms. Meghna Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. M.K. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 30.09.2019 and the applicants have applied the certified copy on 01.01.2020; thus there is no explanation for the intermediate period, and therefore, urged that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay and on the ground of inaction and negligence of the applicants, learned advocate for the respondent urged to reject the application.

4. It appears that the certified copy was received on 24.10.2019 and the application was made before the trial court for the record and proceedings which was received on 29.01.2020 and therefore it appears that the time so consumed was for procuring the certified copy of the record and proceedings; and thus sufficient cause has been shown for the delay occurred in filing the appeal.

5. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-

C/CA/1293/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to

C/CA/1293/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022

benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. 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."

6. Thus, taking into consideration the principle as laid down in the above referred judgment and when the delay of 59 days is sufficiently explained, the same is condoned. The

C/CA/1293/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022

application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

(GITA GOPI,J) A.M.A. SAIYED