Himachal Road Transport ... vs Chuni Lal & Another ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16827 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CMP (M) No. 985 of 2023 in &

.

LPA No. 188 of 2023

Reserved on: 11.10.2023 Decided on: 19.10.2023

Himachal Road Transport Corporation ...Applicant/Appellant

Versus Chuni Lal & another ...Non-applicants/Respondents

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

Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellant: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sarthak Upadhayay, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for

respondent no. 1.

Respondent No. 2 already ex-parte.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice

CMP (M) No. 985 of 2023

This Application has been filed by the Himachal Road

Transport Corporation to condone delay of 227 days in filing the

appeal challenging the judgment dt. 18.11.2022, passed by the

learned Single Judge in CWP no. 4962 of 2020, titled as Chunni

Lal Sharma vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and

another.

2. In the Application to condone the said period of delay,

it is the plea of the applicant that the judgment of the learned

.

Single Judge was pronounced on 18.11.2022; that copy of the

judgment was applied by the applicant-Corporation on 02.01.2023;

that it was attested on 04.01.2023 and delivered on the same date;

and thereafter the appeal was preferred on 26.07.2023 with a delay

of 227 days.

3.

It is contended that the applicant has a good case in

the appeal and the delay in filing the same occurred on account of

certain reasonable grounds.

4. Reply is filed to the said application by the 1st

respondent contending that the applicant had not chosen to explain

the delay in even applying the certified copy of the judgment of the

learned Single which was pronounced on 18.11.2022 for almost six

weeks; that the application of condonation of delay has been

drafted in a very casual manner; and there a lackadaisical attitude

exhibited by the applicant in pursuing the application as well as the

appeal.

5. This issue has been considered by the Supreme Court

in Postmaster General and others Versus 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 r 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 separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed

(2012) 3 SCC 563

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 r 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 r 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."

The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme

6.

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 &

others 4, Union of India & others Vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching

(2022) 3 SCC 159

(2022) 2 SCC 327

(2021) 11 SCC 557

Private Limited & another5 and State of Uttar Pradesh & others

Vs. Sabha Narain & others6.

.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant 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.

8. In that case, the High Court had condoned the delay of

9.

r to 479 days in filing a Land Acquisition Appeal in the High Court and

the explanation offered found favour with the Supreme Court.

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

(2022) 9 SCC 263

(2022) 9 SCC 266

the order of appeal is clearly wrong and not when it is merely not

right.

.

10. The said decision therefore cannot help the applicant

since in this case, this Court has to consider the question whether

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

11. We are satisfied that the applicant has not shown

sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate long period of delay

of 227 days in challenging the order of the learned Single Judge

because no explanation has been offered even for delay of six

weeks in applying for certified copy of the judgment of the learned

Single Judge and after securing it on 04.01.2023, why for the next

six months, the appeal was not presented.

12. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

( M.S. Ramachandra Rao )

Chief Justice

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge October 19, 2023 (hemlata)