CMP(M) No. 123 of 2023
Reserved on 25th April, 2025.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
This application has been filed by applicants/appellants H.P.
certified copy vide application dated 27th July, 2022. Certified copy was
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
attested on 30th July, 2022. As no probable date of delivery was given, the
copy was received/delivered on 5th September, 2022. It was further stated
of copy, whereas limitation expired on 31st August, 2022. It was further
No.5 had expired on 23rd September, 2020. Thereafter, she was
explaining the delay as occurred in filing the appeal.
5 Thereafter, supplementary affidavit was filed on 5 th
9. That the Ld. Counsel of the Board vide letter dated 05-01-
2023 had intimated that for the maintainability of the appeal
it has to be accompanied by the receipt of the deposit of the
entire awarded amount and the same is required to be
deposited with the Ld. Employee Commissioner. The Ld.
Standing Counsel of the Board had prepared the appeal
and the present application and same was filed before this
Hon'ble Court on 7.1.2023 without further delay. The Senior
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd.,
Dharampur District Mandi HP has deposited a sum of Rs.
13,11,276/- with the Ld. Employee Commissioner Sarkaghat
District Mandi HP on 17-01-2023 vide Cheque No. 800989
dated 16-01-2023 after completion of codal formalities. The
copy of the deposit receipt was handed over to the Ld.
Standing Counsel of the Board on 18-01-2023.
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
10. That it is the further humble and respectful submissions
of the applicants that the delay in filing the present appeal is
neither willful nor intentional but is bonafide one and this
Hon'ble High Court may take judicial notice of the fact that in
the administrative hierarchy to reach at the final decision, the
files have to be routed/moved through the table to table and
office to the office which is a time-consuming process. It is
also pertinent to mention here that the
Government/administrative decision is not a decision of an
individual and the authority who is competent to make the
final decision some sometimes not available or is busy in
executing other works. The applicants craves before this
Hon'ble Court that a lenient view may kindly be taken in the
present case keeping in view the submissions made in the
foregoing paras and the delay in filing the appeal may kindly
be condoned to advance the substantial cause of justice."
6 Though no reply/response has been filed to the application
or to the supplementary affidavit, however learned counsel appearing for
respondents has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the
ground that applicant/Board has failed to explain sufficient cause which
prevented the Board from filing the appeal within limitation period. It has
been contended that details of day-to-day movement of file in various
offices before the authorized Officer/Officials is not a sufficient cause to
justify the delay in filing the appeal particularly when as stated in paras 7
and 8 of supplementary affidavit, the draft letter placed before the
Authority for approval and signature by Deputy Secretary (Law) on 26th
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
October, 2022, was signed and approved by competent authority of
Board on 19th November, 2022, and after receiving the letter by Senior
Executive Engineer on 28th November, 2022, the appeal was preferred on
7th January, 2023. It has been contended that applicant-Board has failed
to establish the due diligence for entire period of delay especially
between 26th October, 2022 to 19th November, 2022 and from 28th
November, 2022 till filing of appeal i.e. 7th January, 2023.
7 Learned counsel for respondents to substantiate his plea has
placed reliance upon pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj
Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Union of India and
another reported in (2023)10 SCC 531; order dated 29th November, 2024
passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 titled
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramkumar Choudhary; order dated 21st
November, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.935-
936 of 2021 titled Rajneesh Kumar and another vs. Ved Prakash and
judgment dated 9th September, 2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in OMP(M) No. 26 of 2024 with Arb. Case No.790 of 2024
titled State of HP and another vs. M/s Mengi Engineering Company.
8 Learned counsel for applicants/appellants has submitted that
though, initially, the action of applicants/Board through its Officers and
Officials was not stated elaborately but the delay, as mentioned in para 5
of application, was stated to have occurred on account of movement of
file to take decision at various levels. She has further submitted that said
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
cause stands duly explained and substantiated in the details given in
supplementary affidavit filed by applicant after seeking leave of Court.
9 It has been further submitted that in present matter, there is
delay of 124 days and from the details given in affidavit, it is apparent that
file was dealt with promptly at various levels, whereas in the cases,
referred on behalf of respondents, there was inordinate unexplained
delay which caused the dismissal of application for condonation of delay
in those cases.
10 It has been submitted that in Ramkumar Choudhary's case
there was delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and matter remained
pending for seeking permission to file appeal with the Law Department for
3 years and there was no explanation for those 3 years.
11 It has been further submitted that in Rajneesh Kumar's
case there was delay of 534 days and applicants therein were fully aware
about pendency of counter claim but this fact had been deliberately and
willfully concealed and was not stated in application for restoration and
thus for not approaching the Court with clean hands, rather suppressing
the material facts deliberately and intentionally regarding the knowledge
of pendency of counter claim, the prayer for condonation of delay was
rejected.
12 Further, it has been stated that in OMP(M) No. 26 of 2024,
the matter was related to delay in filing objections under Section 34(3) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein the objections were filed after
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
expiry of 120 days i.e. even after extended limitation period of 30 days
and therefore, it has been contended that in case of filing of objections
under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there is no
provision for condonation of delay after lapse of 30 days from the date of
expiry of limitation period of 90 days.
13 Learned counsel for Board has also referred para 30 of
judgment passed in Sheo Raj Singh's case to canvass that facts and
circumstances in present case, as explained in supplementary affidavit,
warrant that delay in filing the appeal in present matter be condoned.
Paras 30 to 32 read as under:-
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there
cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to
ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State
are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical
considerations of delay. However, these decisions
notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being
a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of
discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of
the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the
explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being
shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay
of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in
certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned
if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course,
the courts must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an
'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify
the circumstances of a particular event and allows the
person to point out that something that has happened is not
his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be
taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'.
Although people tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as
the same thing and struggle to find out the difference
between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is
real.
32. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny
responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort
of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse'
would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to
be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all
situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay
based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be
decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament
that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more
often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard
public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda
is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the
higher courts for adjudication."
14 It has been further contended that time taken by competent
Authority between 26th October, 2022 to 19th November, 2022 for signing
the approval for filing appeal cannot be said inordinate delay in granting
the approval as it was granted within 23 days and further that
immediately after obtaining the approval, after 28th November, 2022,
documents were submitted to the Standing Counsel of Board, who in
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
turn, vide letter dated 5th January, 2023 had intimated to ensure the
deposit of amount of compensation with the Commissioner, Employees
Compensation, and simultaneously, he had prepared the appeal which
was filed in Registry on 7th January, 2023. However, the amount of
Rs.13,11,276/- could be arranged a bit later and same was deposited
with Commissioner, Employees Compensation on 17th January, 2023 vide
cheque dated 16th January, 2023 after completing the codal formalities.
15 Though, there is some laxity on the part of either counsel
representing the Board or the Officers looking after the matter before the
Employees Compensation Commissioner, however, in the given facts and
circumstances, it cannot be said that there is inordinate unexplained
delay in filing the appeal particularly when there is nothing on record to
rebut the plea taken and explanation given in application as well as
supplementary affidavit filed in support thereof. The judgments in
Ramkumar Choudhary and Rajneesh Kumar's cases have been
passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. The facts of
the present case are neither similar nor nearer to similarity of those
matter.
16 From the contents of affidavit and submissions made by
learned counsel for applicants, it cannot be said that details given in
affidavit and submissions made by learned counsel for applicants are
merely excuse and not reasonable explanation. The applicants-Board
( 2025:HHC:14618 )
has succeeded to establish its due diligence in pursuing the matter and to
point out that delay was not intentional or willful.
17 After taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for parties and material placed on record, I am of
considered opinion that in present case reasons for delay in filing the
appeal stand explained and there was sufficient cause which prevented
the applicant-Board from filing the appeal within limitation period.
18 Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
19 Appeal be registered.
Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
20th May, 2025
(MS)
