Amreli District Panchayat vs Sonaben Mavjibhai Jethva
2025 Latest Caselaw 5081 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Amreli District Panchayat vs Sonaben Mavjibhai Jethva on 24 June, 2025

Author: A.S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/CA/3342/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3342 of
                                                   2025

                                   In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 17640 of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                               AMRELI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
                                                          Versus
                                             SONABEN MAVJIBHAI JETHVA & ORS.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR AAKASH GUPTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                             and
                             HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                                                         Date : 24/06/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

By way of this application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant seeks to condone the delay of 2659 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the oral order dated 16/01/2018 passed in SCA No.17090 of 2014 whereby the said petition preferred by the respondent-workman came to be allowed.

2. Heard Mr.Kaash K Thakkar, learned advocate for the applicant and learned AGP for respondent - State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that delay of 2659 days was caused in preferring the LPA was due to administrative reasons and there is no deliberate delay on part of the applicant. He has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3342/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

undefined

further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was received by the applicant on 23/01/2018 and due to upcoming general elections, the government offices were unable to work effectively and the office of the applicant was informed to take opinion of the panel advocate, who in turn advised not to file LPA.

4. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that thereafter due to COVID-19 pandemic, some time has been consumed and again the procedure was commenced by sending all the papers to the TDO who was under the impression that since the issue relates to the pension, the Finance Department of the State Government will file an appeal. However, on 13/01/2025, the Panchayat Department wrote letter to the applicant seeking clarification for not filing an appeal and thereafter the applicant came to know that applicant is required to file LPA. It is therefore submitted that due to the aforesaid departmental procedure, the huge delay of 2659 days was caused in preferring the LPA and there is no willful delay caused on behalf of the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant has therefore submitted to allow the present application and to condone the delay of 2659 days caused in preferring the LPA.

5. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.3 - State would submit to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and examining the facts of the case, it appears that impugned judgment was passed on 16/01/2018; certified copy thereof was applied by the applicant on 30/05/2025 and received on 03/06/2025. Thereafter, the applicant started procedure such as seeking opinion to file LPA where the internal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3342/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

undefined

communications took place between the two departments for filing LPA where the delay was caused in preferring the LPA. Learned advocate for the applicant has only produced the copy of communications undertaken between the two departments; but no such explanation there-from is coming on record to show that delay was caused due to procedural aspect. Merely making communication from one department to another would not mean to be 'sufficient cause'. No satisfactory reasons there-from are coming out to show that delay caused was procedural delay.

7. At the most, what could be noticed that though the applicant has pleaded to condone the delay of 2659 days caused in filing LPA, nowhere the applicant has shown calculation of delay. Apart from not showing any calculation for delay, the applicant has merely produced the copy of communication took place between the two departments, however no such reasons are stated which can be said to be 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. It appears from the record that the reasons are absolute superficial and they are not constituting any sufficient cause, which could receive the liberal consideration so as to render substantial justice. It is a gross delay of 2659 days i.e. more than seven years in preferring the LPA and in absence of the material which has prevented the applicant from prosecuting the cause, the delay cannot be condoned merely on the administrative grounds.

8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy [2024 (2) GLH 217], after considering earlier judgments in para 33 and 35 has held as under :-

"33. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v/s. Managing committee of Raghunathpur Nagar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, this Court made the following observations :-

21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3342/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

undefined

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-

oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

21.2. (ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/3342/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

undefined

to face such a litigation.

21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-

serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.

35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case."

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/CA/3342/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025

                                                                                                             undefined

9. In view of the aforesaid facts coupled with the material produced by the applicant, it appears that on receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment, that too after lapse of more than seven years, the applicant sought legal opinion of the panel Advocate, who in turn advised not to file the LPA. However, citing the internal communication, more particularly, of the Panchayat Department, which sought the clarifications from the present applicant for not filing LPA, the applicant seems to have rushed to this Court, by filing Letters Patent Appeal just to purge itself from the huge delay of citing the internal communications, as also raised only administrative grounds which does not inspire any confidence or credence to condone the huge and inordinate delay caused in preferring the captioned LPA.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the present application fails and is accordingly dismissed.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura / 3