Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India vs Savitri Devi on 4 November, 2022
Sr. No. 1 & 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CM Nos. 5487/2022 &
5488/2022 in
CDLSW No. 9900005/2015
Union of India ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Versus
<
Savitri Devi .....Respondent(s)
Through :-
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
04.11.2022
ORAL
CM No. 5487/2022
1. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking
condonation of delay of 2082 days in filing the accompanied restoration
application seeking restoration of the application for condonation of delay in
filing the main appeal, dismissed for default of taking steps for service of
respondents, vide order dated 08.12.2015.
2. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI has vehemently argued that the
delay in filing the restoration application on the part of the applicant is neither
intentional nor willful. It is contended that the order dated 08.12.2015 was
passed in absence of the counsel for the applicant because the steps for service
of respondents were not taken and the said order was not brought to the notice
of the applicant and the applicant all along remained under the impression that
the matter is pending.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused this application.
4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary
No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin
& Ors., on 04.02.2021 on account of delay observed as under:-
"We have repeatedly being counselling through
our orders various Government departments,
State Governments and other public authorities
that they must learn to file appeals in time and set
their house in order so far as the legal department
is concerned, more so as technology assists them.
This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs
having been imposed in number of matters with
the direction to recover it from the officers
responsible for the delay as we are of the view that
these officers must be made accountable. It has not
had any salutary effect and that the present matter
should have been brought up, really takes the
cake!
The aforesaid itself shows the casual
manner in which the petitioner has approached
this Court without any cogent or plausible ground
for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the
lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there
is nothing which has been put on record. 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 judgment 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]........................."
5. Having regard to above referred judgment, it suggests that the
applicant has perceived delay as a non serious matter and its lackadaisical
tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the applicant has
pursued the matter. Also, the application is very vague and has been drafted in a
very casual manner without disclosing any reasons.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made
hereinabove and the settled law position, we do not find any merit in the
application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly, the same is
dismissed. As a result thereof, the accompanied restoration application, i.e.,
CM No. 5488/2022 is also rejected.
(Rajesh Sekhri) ) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
04.11.2022
Pawan Angotra
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
PAWAN ANGOTRA
2022.11.05 14:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
