Decided On: 06.05.2025 vs Mehar Chand ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 448 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 06.05.2025 vs Mehar Chand ... on 6 May, 2025

                                         1




                                                                  2025:HHC:13043
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                              CMP(M) No. 341 of 2025 in
                                LPA No.217 of 2025
                                Decided on: 06.05.2025

      State of H.P & others.                        ......applicants/appellants

                                         Versus

      Mehar Chand                               ...non-applicant/respondent

      Coram
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1
      For the applicants/appellants:      Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
                                          Advocate General.

      G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The present appeal barred by 455 days' seeks

consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

CWPOA No.6015 of 2019 decided on 19.09.2023.

2. The learned Single Judge has held that writ petitioner is

entitled for fixation of pay while granting him step-up in terms of the

said judgment along with all consequential arrears as the Writ

petitioner had challenged the withdrawal of step-up in pay. While

noticing the writ petitioner and corresponding employees who were

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

employee in the Department of Police and only because they are

posted in different Battalions, the entitlement was held out not to be

denied as they had common seniority list in the same cadre, by the

learned Single Judge.

3. The above facts have only been noticed for the purpose

of dismissing the application for condonation of delay and therefore

we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing on merits as

such and this Court has examined the said aspect in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through

LRs and others Vs. Union of India & another, (2023) 10 SCC 531,

relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

"35.1. The law of limitation was founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice.

35.2 The expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, the former would prevail.

35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. Further, the merits of a claim were also to be considered when deciding such applications for condonation of delay.

35.4 Further, a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the

government functionaries and the government counsel on record before the Reference Court.

35.5. The officer responsible for the negligence would be liable to suffer and not public interest through the State. The High Court felt inclined to take a pragmatic view since the negligence therein did not border on callousness.

36. Given these reasons, we do not consider discretion to have been exercised by the High Court in an arbitrary manner. The order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not."

4. The judgment was pronounced on 19.09.2023 and copy

of the said judgment was applied on 03.10.2023 which was attested

on 07.11.2023 and the appeal came to be filed by 06.12.2023, as per

the averments made in the said application. The certified copy of the

judgment was received on 12.12.2023 and was examined in the

office and only referred to the H.P. Government for advice on

16.10.2024. Nothing has been mentioned as to what happened in 10

months with the Department as such. The Government directed re-

examination and the matter was re-examined and submitted with the

Government on 25.11.2024 and directions were issued to file LPA

on 20.01.2025 which was done at the earliest. However, the delay as

such, as noticed above, from December 2023 to October 2024 has

not been explained by the Department in any manner.

5. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd versus

Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5

SCC 459, it was held that law of limitation is founded on public

policy and resultantly the appeal was allowed and the order

condoning the delay as such of four years in filing of the appeal was

set aside by holding that in the absence of any plausible/tangible

explanation for long delay of more than four years in filing of

appeal, there was no valid reasons to condone the delay.

5(i). In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living

Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, the principles

as such have been laid down that the department could not take

advantage of impersonal machinery or the inherited bureaucratic

methodology and the law of limitation binds everybody including

the Government. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as

under:-

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

5(ii). In Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal

Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, it has been

held that a litigant acquire certain rights and if the Court finds that

there is negligence in prosecuting the case then it would be a

legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.

5(iii). In B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy

(2012) 12 SCC 693, it was noticed that there is a life span for such

legal remedy for the redressal of such injuries so suffered and

unending period lead to unending certainty and consequential

anarchy. The Rules of limitation were held not meant to destroy

the rights of the parties.

5(iv). In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee

of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649,

the principles of limitation were culled out as under:

"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.

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.

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

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.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 to face such a litigation.

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.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."

5(v). Recently, in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled as H.

Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs,

decided on 08.01.2025, the following observations have come

forth:-

"16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."

6. Keeping in view the above, since State is unable to

explain the delay of 10 months and the inaction as such can be

termed as negligent, thus, we are of the considered opinion that it has

lost its right as such to get consideration of the judgment. Even

otherwise, we are of the opinion that it is not a policy as such sought

to be adjudicated upon and would have larger ramification which

require consideration.

7. Therefore, for the reasons given above, we dismiss the

application for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the appeal is also

dismissed.

                                                       ( G.S. Sandhawalia )
                                                           Chief Justice



May 06, 2025                                             ( Ranjan Sharma )
     (ankit)                                                 Judge