Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shree Shantinath Steel vs Indore Development Authority on 26 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
WA No.918/2020
(Shree Shantinath Steel vs. Indore Development & Ors.)
Indore: Dated:-26/07/2021:-
Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Vaishali
Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.2443/2020 for condonation of delay.
2) In the said application, the appellant has averred as under:-
"3. That, the appellant has been under the
impression that the writ petition is pending. The
appellant did not and could not get any information
about the decision of the appeal and recently when
the appellant approached its lawyer to know about the
status of the writ petition, it is informed that the writ
petition filed by the appellant has already been
dismissed by the learned writ court. There has been
long prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation also.
4. That, the delay in filing the present appeal is
bonafide and has occurred beyond reasonable control
of the appellant and the further delay has been
occurred due long prevailing COVID-19 pandemic
situation also.
5. That, if the delay in filing of the present
appeal is not condoned, the Appellant shall suffer
irreparable injury."
3) Shri VK Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the real reasons for belatedly filing the present
appeal are honestly spelled out in the instant application. The
delay on the part of a citizen must be leniently dealt with in
comparison to the delay which takes place in appeals filed by the
State belatedly.
4) Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned AAG opposed the
application on the basis of reply filed.
2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
5) We have heard the parties on the application.
6) The Registry of this Court has counted the delay as 234
days. The limitation to file appeal is 90 days. Thus, delay is
enormous. In the application, it is not mentioned as to when and
how appellant gathered information about order of Writ Court.
Application is sketchy and vague.
7) The Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 (Postmaster General
and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr.) opined as
under:-
"28......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."
Emphasis supplied
8) In SLP (C) Diary No.9217/20 (State of MP vs. Bherulal),
the Apex Court again considered the judgment of Chief Post
Master General (supra) and opined as under:-
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 greater leeway
was given to the Government (Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987)
2 SCC 107). This position is more than 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 where the Court observed as under:
"12) 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
3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
9) A plain reading of last three lines of aforesaid reproduced
paragraph makes it clear that law of limitation undoubtedly binds
everybody in similar manner including the government.
10) In the present days of technical advancement, the orders
and judgments of the Courts are made available on the Website
of the Court immediately, which can be seen by any litigant.
Thus, in cases of delay, the party seeking condonation must show
with accuracy and precision as to how such delay has been
caused. The enormous delay cannot be condoned on mere asking.
Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning the delay. In the
instant application, as noticed, neither date of knowledge nor
mode of information regarding impugned order is clearly
4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
mentioned. Thus, we are inclined to hold that sufficient cause has
not been shown for belatedly filing the present appeal. Thus, IA
No.2443/2020 is dismissed.
11) As a consequence, writ appeal is also dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
Digitally signed
by SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Date: 2021.07.27
17:11:08 +05'30'
