Karnataka High Court
Mrs Gowramma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WA No. 370 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.370 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS GOWRAMMA
D/O SRI RUDRAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS
R/A BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DIST. - 577 203
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed
by AMBIKA H DAVANAGAREE
B DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
Location: HIGH DAVANAGREE - 577 003
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE - 577 003
3. SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O D K RAMAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O CHINNIKATTE VILLAGE
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, AGA)
-2-
WA No. 370 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
30/08/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
ALLOWING WRIT PETITION NOS.23876-77/2011 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated
30.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
Nos.23876-23877/2011. There is a delay of 3130 days in filing the
writ appeal. I.A No.1/2022 - an application for condonation of delay
is presented along with an affidavit.
2. The perusal of the affidavit reveals casual approach of the
appellant. It is surprising to note that when the appellant suffered
dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay, it
was expected for her to be more careful and approach the
appellate forum within a reasonable period. But, only a lame
excuse for inordinate delay of nearly 3130 days is revealed in the
affidavit. On one hand, vague grounds that the appellant lost the
writ petition number and contact number of the advocate who
represented them in the writ petition are raised and on the other
hand an attempt is made to submit that the appellant was not
WA No. 370 of 2022
keeping good health, that too in the year 2022. There is absolutely
no explanation, leave aside any satisfactory explanation, for
inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has cautioned that
though the delay by itself may not be a ground but, the party must
satisfy the Court and if the party fails to satisfy the Court, party will
have to suffer for his casual approach. We may quote here the
latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 16.12.2021 in the
matter of MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO vs. REDDY SRIDEVI
& ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL No.7696/2021) . In paragraph 7.1 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the judgment of
RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL vs. REWA COALFIELDS
LTD.1. Similarly, in paragraph 7.4, the Hon'ble Apex Court observes
thus:
"7.4 In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is
observed and held by this Court that the discretion to
condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously
based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is
further observed that the expression "sufficient
cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence,
(1962) 2 SCR 762
WA No. 370 of 2022
inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the
party. It is further observed that even though
limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute. It is further observed that in case a party
has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or
there is inaction then there cannot be any justified
ground for condoning the delay even by imposing
conditions. It is observed that each application for
condonation of delay has to be decided within the
framework laid down by this Court. It is further
observed that if courts start condoning delay where
no sufficient cause is made out by imposing
conditions then that would amount to violation of
statutory principles and showing utter disregard to
legislature.
7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra),
it is observed by this Court that the court cannot
enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of
equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those
who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".
(emphasis supplied by us)
4. Considering all these observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, we are unable to find any justifiable explanation for the
inordinate delay caused in preferring the appeal. The application
for condonation of delay, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
WA No. 370 of 2022
5. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory
applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
