The State Of H.P. & Others vs Neem Chand
2023 Latest Caselaw 18069 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

LPA Nos. 203, 204 and 205 of 2023 a/w CMP(M) Nos.939, 992 & 935 of 2023

.

Reserved on:18.10.2023.

                           Pronounced on:17.11.2023_____

    CMP(M) No.939 of 2023





    The State of H.P. & Others                      ......Appellants
                                 Versus
    Neem Chand                              ...Respondent

________________________________________________________ CMP(M) No.992 of 2023 The State of Himachal Pradesh through the

Additional Chief Secretary (PWD) & Others ....Appellants

Versus Megh Raj ...Respondent _______________________________________________________

CMP(M) No.935 of 2023 The State of H.P. through Principal Secretary

(Forests) to the Govt. of H.P. & Others ......Appellants

Versus Hari Ram ...Respondent ___________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta & Mr. Pranay Pratap

Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Sidharth Jalta & Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate Generals.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.

.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.

CMPs (M) No.939, 992 & 935 of 2023

These three applications have been filed by the State of Himachal

Pradesh seeking condonation of delay of 293 days, 620 days & 237 days

in filing the said Letters Patent Appeals, challenging different orders

passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court in CWP no.4900 of

2020, CWP no.1726 of 2016 & CWP no.1493 of 2022, respectively.

2) The reasons assigned for condonation of delay in all the three

applications have the same pattern.

3) In CMP (M) no.939 of 2023, where the State seeks condonation of

delay of 293 days in filing appeal against the judgment

dt. 08.08.2022 in CWP no.4900 of 2020, it is stated that the decision

to file the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment was

conveyed by applicant no.1 through a letter dt. 21.10.2022 and even

thereafter, the file moved from one place to another and the appeal

ultimately was filed on 03.06.2023.

4) In CMP (M) no.992 of 2023, where the applicants seek condonation

of delay of 620 days in filing the LPA against the judgment

dt. 27.08.2021 in CWP no.1726 of 2016, it is stated that the

.

judgment was supplied to the applicant no.2 by the office of

Advocate General on 30.12.2021, four months after its

pronouncement. Why it took four months for the copy of the

judgment to be supplied by the office of the Additional Advocate

General to applicant no.2, is not explained.

It is stated that the issue was unattended at the HPPWD, 5th

Circle, Palampur, till the 2nd respondent through a letter of 20th June,

2023, informed about non-receipt of certified copy of the judgment of

the learned Single Judge, and then the file appears to have moved in

the Department from table to table and it was ultimately filed on

28.06.2023, though the decision to file the appeal was alleged to have

been taken on 31.08.2022.

5) In CMP no.935 of 2023, where the State seeks condonation of delay

of 237 days in filing the LPA challenging the judgment of the

08.08.2022 of the learned Single Judge in CWP no.1493 of 2022, it

is stated that decision was taken to challenge the order of the learned

Single Judge on 03.11.2022, but the LPA was filed on 03.06.2023.

6) The above explanation offered for filing these appeals with delay,

indicates a casual and negligent attitude on the part of the applicants

in taking steps to challenge the orders passed by the learned Single

.

Judges.

7) This issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in Postmaster

General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another1.

In paras-26 to 30, it held as under:

"26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the

certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of

receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and

genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the

Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate

steps.

27. 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

(2012) 3 SCC 563

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.

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 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a 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."

.

8) The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in

several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s

Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.2; Pr. Commissioner Central

Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.3; Union of

India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & others4; Union

of India & others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and

another5; and State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Sabha Narain &

others6.

9) Learned Additional Advocate General relied on the recent judgment

of the Supreme Court rendered on 09.10.2023 in Civil Appeal no.

5867 of 2015, titled as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs &

others Vs. Union of India & another.

10) In Sheo Raj Singh , the High Court had condoned the delay of 479

days in filing a Land Acquisition Appeal in the High Court and the

explanation offered found favour with the Supreme Court.

(2022) 3 SCC 159

(2022) 2 SCC 327

(2021) 11 SCC 557

(2022) 9 SCC 263

(2022) 9 SCC 266

In that case, the Supreme Court observed that it was not

hearing an application for condonation of delay, but was sitting in

appeal over discretionary exercise of the High Court granting the

.

prayer for condonation of delay; in the case of the former, whether to

condone or not, would be the only question, whereas in the latter,

whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of

grant of prayer for condonation, would be the question; and the law

was well settled that a Court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere

with the discretionary exercise by the Courts below, and that the

appellate power should be exercised only when the order of appeal is

clearly wrong and not when it is merely not right.

11) The said decision therefore cannot help the applicants since in the

instant applications, this Court has to consider the question whether

sufficient cause has been shown to condone the period of delay.

12) Having regard to the said legal position, we are satisfied that the

applicants had not shown sufficient cause for condoning the

inordinate long period of delay in filing the instant appeals

challenging the orders of the learned Single Judges.

13) Therefore, the applications are dismissed.

LPA nos. 203, 204 and 205 of 2023.

14) Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed.

15) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

.

disposed of.

                                           (M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
                                                Chief Justice





                                            (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
    November 17 , 2023                            Judge
      (Yashwant)