Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Of India And Others vs M/S Princo Oil Mills And Others on 9 February, 2021
S. No. 201
Advance List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
....
CM No. 4805/2019 in
LPA No. 187/2019
Union of India and others
........ Applicant(s)
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh, Adv.
v/s
M/s Princo Oil Mills and others
........ Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M. M. Dar, Adv.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
09.02.2021
CM No. 4805/2019
1. Delay of 644 days in filing Appeal against judgment and order dated
11th August 2017, passed in OWP No.1354/2013, is sought to be
condoned in Application on hand.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Single
Judge, while rendering judgment dated 11th August 2017, has
observed that property in question was in occupation of Union of India
and, therefore, payment of rent is not in dispute. However, with regard
to compensation for damages, it was observed by the learned Single
Judge, that the Government had to determine the same based on
relevant facts presented by the petitioner after verifying it with Central
Government.
MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.02.11 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CM No. 4805/2019 in
LPA No. 187/2019
4. We have perused the condonation of delay application and have given
thoughtful consideration to the case in hand.
5. Cardinally, application on hand does not show or disclose sufficient
cause to condone the delay of 644 days in filing the Appeal.
6. Judgement dated 11th August 2017, besought to be challenged in
concomitant Appeal (LPA no.187/2019), was passed way back in mid
of 2017, i.e., 11th August 2017.
7. Perusal of certified copy of judgement dated 11th August 2017,
annexed with the memo of Appeal, would unequivocally divulge that
its certified copy was made available to applicants in the month of
October 2017. This per se reflects and portrays knowledge of passing
of judgement very much in the year 2017.
8. To seek condonation of delay, the chief ground raised by applicants in
application on hand is comprised in paragraph 03 thereof. They aver
that copy of judgement was received on 2nd November 2017;
thereafter legal opinion sought from ASG(I) was received on 11th
November 2017. This was followed by submission of proposal for
obtaining of LA (Defence) opinion, which was received on 12th
February 2019. Thereafter, it is stated, the brief along with documents
were forwarded to ASG(I) for preparing the LPA on 26th February
2019.
It is surprised to see that applicants took about two years for
getting an opinion from Legal Advisor (Defence) to file an Appeal.
MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.02.11 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CM No. 4805/2019 in
LPA No. 187/2019
This in unambiguous terms displays casual approach on the part of
applicants.
9. It also comes to fore from perusal of the record that Application on
hand along with memo of Appeal has been filed before this Court on
17th July 2019, which also depicts casual approach and practice of
respondents in filing the Appeal after lapse of five months from the
date of assigning and forwarding the documents to the counsel, i.e.,
26th February 2019. Such practice is not condonable and has been
deprecated by the Supreme Court, recently, while rendering a
judgement dated 22nd January 2021, in a case, bearing Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary no.25743/2020, titled State of Uttar Pradesh
and others v. Sabha Narain and others. The Supreme Court imposed
costs to be recovered from the officers responsible for delay in filing
the appeal. The Supreme Court, thus, held:
"We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments
and public authorities in adopting an approach that they
can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they
please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the
Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to
them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in
the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP
[C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The
State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C]
Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The
leeway which was given to the Government/public
authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the
result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time
when technology had not advanced and thus, greater
indulgence was shown. This position is no more
prevalent and the current legal position has been
elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the
Chief Post Master General & Ors v. Living Media India
Ltd. & Anr. - (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there
MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.02.11 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CM No. 4805/2019 in
LPA No. 187/2019
seems to be a little change in the approach of the
Government and public authorities."
10.The averments made in application on hand clearly show that
applicants have never bothered to file the Appeal against the
judgement dated 11th August 2017, on time and resultantly the delay
has occasioned. The delay for filing the Appeal is not on the basis of
certain circumstances but the same is deliberate.
11.We, therefore, are not inclined to condone the delay of 644 days in
filing the Appeal. The COD application is, accordingly, dismissed.
12.Consequently, the Appeal is also dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR) (TASHI RABSTAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
09.02.2021
Altaf
MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.02.11 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
