Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector Rahabilitation ... vs Pateliya Pratapbhai Bijalbhai on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/710/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 710 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26772 of 2021
==========================================================
DEPUTY COLLECTOR RAHABILITATION LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
PATELIYA PRATAPBHAI BIJALBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 25/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Prayer is made to condone the delay of 114 days.
Learned AGP submitted that the certified copy of the judgment
and award delivered on 08.02.2019 was moved on 07.03.2019.
The same was received on 15.10.2019. The Government
Pleader gave his opinion by letter dated 04.12.2019. The said
was forwarded by the Superintendent Engineer to the
Department by letter dated 10.12.2019 and on receiving the
same on 20.02.2020, the Committee Meeting was held on
07.03.2020 to challenge the award. Process was undertaken for
approval from the Legal Department and the approval was
received by letter dated 20.06.2020 to the Office of
Government Pleader and thereafter, a letter was addressed to
the District Government Pleader for the certified copies and on
receiving the same on 03.11.2020, a draft was prepared for
C/CA/710/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2022
approval. Learned AGP submitted that due to lock-down owing
to the pandemic, the machinery could not function which has
consumed lot of time and thus, after deducting the days
granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay occurred on
114 days.
2. In Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. V. Mst.
Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353, it has been held as under;
"The legislature has conferred the power to condone
delay by enacting Section 51 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 meaning- ful manner which subserves 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:-
"Any appeal or any application, other than an application
under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the
prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant
satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within
such period."
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious
C/CA/710/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2022
matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause
of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is
con- doned 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
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 stepmotherly treatment when the
'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay.
In fact experience shows that on account of an
impersonal machinary (no one in charge of the matter is
directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be
C/CA/710/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2022
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 mertis in preference
to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits."
3. The delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay so
caused is due to administration reasons and therefore, this
Court does not deem it necessary to send notice to the other
side. Considering this aspect and the time consumed for taking
approval from various Departments of the State, the cause is
shown to condone the delay. Hence, the delay is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
(GITA GOPI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
