State Of J&K vs Karan Dev Singh And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1019 j&K

                                                                         Sr.No. 08


                HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                            AT JAMMU

                                                              CONC No. 224/2015

State of J&K                                           .... Appellant(s)/ Petitioner(s)

                  Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
                             Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting counsel
        V/s

Karan Dev Singh and Another                                        ....Respondent(s)
                  Through :- None
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
                          ORDER

19.05.2023 (ORAL)

1. Through the medium of instant application, the applicant seeks

condonation of 294 days delay in filing an appeal against award dated

08.08.2014 passed in claim petition titled as "Karan Dev Singh vs. State

of J & K & Ors." by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Reasi (for short,

'the tribunal').

2. The facts emanating from the record would reveal that a claim petition

came to be filed by the claimant/respondent 1 herein before the tribunal

for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular

accident on 12.11.2008 after his Car bearing Registration No. JK02AH-

4198 came to be hit by a Police Truck bearing Registration No. JK02Q-

5869 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver namely Mohan

Lal.

3. Upon presentation of the claim petition, the tribunal issued notice to the

respondents, the present applicant/appellant, in response to which

Public Prosecutor (P.P.) entered his appearance on behalf of the

respondents and filed objections to the claim petition opposing the

same.

4. The tribunal on 21.05.2011, framed three issues and upon conclusion of

adjudication of the claim petition, disposed of the same in terms of

award dated 08.08.2014 granting a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/-

(inclusive interim relief) along with interest @6% per annum from the

date of institution of the petition, till final realization to the claimant.

5. The award dated 08.08.2014 is being questioned by the applicant herein,

in the accompanying appeal on multiple grounds.

6. In the instant application, the applicant/appellant herein states that after

obtaining a copy of the award, same came to be forwarded to the law

department for obtaining necessary sanction for filing of an appeal,

which sanction came to be granted on 12.02.2015, however on account

of unprecedented floods in the Kashmir valley in 2014, the Civil

Secretariat remained non functional for more than two months and that

due to the backlog of the work, the said sanction came to be accorded

on 12.05.2015. It is being further stated in the application that after

grant of sanction for filing of the appeal from the law department, the

file was handed over to Senior Additional Advocate General (Sr. AAG)

for drafting and filing of the appeal, however, during that period, the

then law officer had resigned and it took some time to the Government

to appoint a new law officer whereafter, the file was handed over to the

new law officer, who directed the concerned authority for providing the

record and then drafted the appeal on 04.08.2015 and signed it on

27.08.2015. It is being lastly stated in the application that delay in filing

an appeal has been due to administrative exigencies and procedural

formalities being beyond the control of the officials.

7. Objections to the application have not been filed, so much so, none has

appeared on behalf of the non applicants/respondents, despite service.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

8. Before proceeding advert to the grounds urged in the application and

explanation offered therein, for seeking condonation of delay in filing

the appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to the position of law

enshrined in Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the principles of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments in regard

thereto.

It is settled position of law that the law of Limitation has to be applied

with all its rigor prescribed by a statute and although, Section 5 of J &

K Limitation Act Samvat, 1995 provides for extension of the period of

limitation in certain cases, yet the appellant/applicant seeking such

extension is required to satisfy the court that there has been a sufficient

cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the

prescribed period.

9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the

case in hand, it is not in dispute that the applicant herein has appeared

before the tribunal, besides having filed response thereto.

It emerges from the record that the applicant herein did not produce any

evidence to prove the issues, the onus to prove whereof was placed on

them.

10. The fundamental ground urged in the application in hand for seeking

condonation of delay by the applicant/appellant is that the sanction for

filing of the appeal came to be granted on 12.02.2015 by the law

department, attributing the delay for such delayed sanction to the floods

of September 2014 in Kashmir valley. The perusal of the application,

however, does not spell out any explanation after November 2014 till

12.05.2015, even if, it is assumed to be true that the working of law

department suffered for two months on account of the floods of

September 2014. It is also not forthcoming from the application, as to

why considerable time came to be consumed after the grant of sanction

for filing of the appeal in filing the same immediately thereafter. No

explanation worth the name has been offered by the applicant in the

application. The application seemingly, has been filed with an

impression that in seeking condonation of delay by the

appellant/applicant being a department of the Government, that the

expression "sufficient cause" would receive a liberal construction. The

said impression, however, in presence of the judgment of the Apex

Court passed in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bherulal, 2020

(10) SSC 654 cannot be entertained, wherein at Paras 3 & 5 following

has been observed:-

"3..... No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a great leeway was given to the Government [LAOv.Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed 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.

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 failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!

5..... A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay."

A further reference to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in

Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC

also becomes imperative, wherein at Para 13 (iii) besides others the

following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act has been provided:-

"(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation."

A further reference to a judgment of the Apex Court titled as P. K.

Ramachadran vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276,

would also be appropriate and advantageous, wherein at Para 6

following is noticed:-

"6..... Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and th courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs."

11. It also needs to be mentioned here that the instant case pertains to the

condonation of delay, arising out of an award passed by the Motor

Accident Tribunal under and in terms of Motor Vehicles Act having

been earned by the respondent herein, on account of injury sustained by

him owing to vehicular accident, wherein the offending vehicle belongs

to the applicant/appellant herein. In such kind of matters, a justice

oriented approach has to be adopted by the courts leaning against the

casual and non diligent approach by the officers of the Government in

seeking setting aside of such an award while maintaining application for

condonation of delay, without expressing any sufficient or plausible

reason or cause which sufficient cause as noticed above, is missing in

the instant case.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application in hand

is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, as a

consequence whereof, the accompanying appeal shall also stand

dismissed.

(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge

Jammu:

19.05.2023
Manan


                Whether the order is speaking     :   Yes

                Whether the order is reportable   :   Yes