Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ut Of J&K & Ors vs Hotel Sideeq Palace on 15 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 11.04.2025
Pronounced on:15.05.2025
CM No.7623/2023
in
LPA No.253/2023
UT OF J&K & ORS. ...APPLICANTS/APPELLANT(S)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG, with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate.
Vs.
HOTEL SIDEEQ PALACE ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. Manzoor A. Dar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal
against orders dated 25.11.2022 and 29.11.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.170/2022 and CCP(S) No.64/2023 respectively.
2. So far as the order dated 29.11.2023 is concerned, there is no delay
in filing the appeal. However, there is a delay of 317 days in filing appeal
against the order dated 25.11.2022. It is stated that the issue regarding
pending payment for the period 15.11.2020 to 04.10.2021 was under
consideration of the designated verification Committee and the said
Committee has furnished its recommendations after culmination of
financial year 2022-23, as such, the actual liability could not be ascertained
and the applicants are challenging the orders only to the extent of
exaggerated/ inflated figure claimed by the respondent.
3. The respondent has filed the response stating therein that no
sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the applicants for condoning the
delay and that contention of the applicants that they have a good cause on
merits, is inconsequential as the merits of the case are not required to be
considered while considering application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. A perusal of the order impugned dated 25.11.2022 reveals that the
learned Writ Court has directed the applicants to release the admitted
liability of rentals (both current and pending) qua the hotel in question. The
contention of the applicants is that some time was consumed in ascertaining
the actual liability and the claim made by the respondent was found to be
exaggerated after the same was finalized by the committee.
6. Admittedly, there is delay of 317 days in filing the appeal and it
appears that the contempt proceedings have also been initiated against the
officers concerned and vide order dated 29.11.2023, the personal
appearance of the alleged contemnors was sought. The learned Writ Court
has passed the order for release of admitted liability in respect of rentals by
placing reliance upon the communication dated 04.08.2022 and some
amount has also been released in favour of the respondent.
7. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties, we are of the
considered view that the applicants have demonstrated a sufficient cause
for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as it is stated by the applicants
that some time was consumed for ascertaining the liability and they are
aggrieved of only the exaggerated claim made by the respondent. The fact
that public money is involved, also cannot be ignored.
8. In this context, it would be appropriate to take note of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in 'Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased)
Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.' 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865,
wherein it has been observed as under:
37. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we
feel that the High Court's decision to condone the delay on account of
the first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for the
reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting
interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an
exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-
oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be
provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in
preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the
prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to
pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower
court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored.
Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental
functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on
balancing of the competing interests.
(emphasis added)
9. Further, in case titled 'Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh", 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as under:
14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that
delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major
aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case,
the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on
the basis of limitation.
10. Accordingly, the instant application seeking condonation of delay is
allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
(RAJESH SEKHRI) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar
15.05.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: No
