Home Department vs Karan Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2420 MP

1          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                   BENCH AT INDORE

      WA No.1260/2020 (Home Department vs. Ankit Solanki),
     WA No.1269/2020 (Home Department vs. Sandeep Patidar),
    WA No.1270/2020 (Home Department vs. Jagdish Choudhary),
     WA No.1271/2020 (Home Department vs. Karan Kumar) &
       WA No.1272/2020 (Home Department vs. Sunil Bhuriya)
Indore: Dated:-16/06/2021:-
        Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General for
the appellant/State.
        Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the respondents.

Regard being heard to the similitude of the matters and applications filed for condonation of delay, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard analogously on the question of condonation of delay.

Heard on IA No.3868/2020 which is filed in WA No.1260/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 293 days.

Heard on IA No.3905/2020 which is filed in WA No.1269/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 293 days.

Heard on IA No.3907/2020 which is filed in WA No.1270/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 336 days.

Heard on IA No.3910/2020 which is filed in WA No.1271/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 301 days.

Heard on IA No.3914/2020 which is filed in WA No.1272/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 430 days.

2) The facts and pleadings are taken into account from IA No.3868/2020. It is urged that the order of Single Bench dated 26/02/2019 passed in WP No.15567/2018 is called in question by belatedly filing the application. There is a delay in filing the present appeal. The delay is sought to be explained by contending that during pandemic Covid-19 Lock-down, the OIC 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE

of the case by letter dated 28/11/2020 applied for getting opinion of Govt. Advocate and in turn, Govt. Advocate gave his opinion on 02/11/2020. By letter dated 25/11/2020, the opinion was forwarded to higher authorities for obtaining permission to file writ appeal. In turn, Home Department granted permission on 01/12/2020 to file this appeal which was then prepared and filed on 17/12/2020. This application was supported by filing additional affidavit wherein it is averred that the Apex Court in suo motu WP (Civil) No.3/2020 took cognizance of Covid-19 related problems and extended the period of limitation w.e.f. 15/03/2020 vide order dated 23/03/2020. Thus, delay needs to be condoned. In addition, it is averred that the review petition was dismissed on 15/07/2019. The limitation was up to 12/10/2019. Although appeal is filed belatedly, the limitation stood extended pursuant to aforesaid suo motu order of Supreme Court up to 15/03/2020. Thus, delay is only of 155 days which is liable to be condoned in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 (State of Nagaland vs. Lipok A.O. and Ors. Reliance is also placed on (2009) 1 JCC 671 (M/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MP & Ors.).

3) Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay is enormous. The appellants have already implemented the impugned order of learned Single Judge to a great extent. He placed reliance on the orders dated 30/01/2020, 03/02/2020, 04/03/2020 and 06/03/2020 which shows that the process of implementation of learned Single Judges' order is in full swing. By placing reliance on (2012) 3 SCC 563 (Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr.) and recent order in SLP (C) Diary No.9217/2020 (The 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bherulal), Shri Manoj Manav urged that no sufficient cause has been shown and accordingly IAs deserve to be dismissed.

4) We have heard the parties at length on these IAs.

5) In the opinion of this Court, the delay is certainly enormous. The writ petitions were decided on 12/10/2018, 14/01/2019, 26/02/2019. The review petitions were decided on 15/07/2019. As per appellant's own saying, the limitation to file the application for condonation of delay was up to 12/10/2019 whereas writ appeals were filed on 17/12/2020, 22/12/2020. The appellants have not explained the delay from the date of order passed by Writ Court or from the date review order was passed. They made an attempt to explain the delay after the order of Supreme Court relating to pandemic dated 15/03/2020, whereas delay has taken place much before the pandemic. Thus, the said suo motu order passed by Supreme Court is of no assistance to the appellants in the instant case. The application for condonation of delay shows that the steps have been taken to seek opinion of Govt. Advocate etc. much after the statutory period of limitation (45 days) to file these appeals expired.

6) Learned Dy. A.G. placed reliance on certain judgments and urged that a pragmatic approach be taken in the present matters because contesting party/appellant is State Govt. It was argued that the cases against the State Govt. are being contested by Officer In-charge of the cases. Those officers don't have the similar interest like a private litigant and, therefore, many times delay is being caused. Delay is a necessary evil when govt. is a litigant. We are not impressed with this argument. The Apex Court in Postmaster General (supra) opined that:-

 4        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                 BENCH AT INDORE

"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

7) In Bherulal (supra), the Apex Court held 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 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 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE

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) Thus, 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 sufficient cause must be related with the period when delay was caused and not subsequent thereto. We are unable to hold that as a Rule of thumb, in all cases where Govt. is an appellant, we should take a pragmatic view and condone the delay as a matter of course. In each case, delay must be explained meticulously. We see no merits in the contention that delay in cases of Govt. is a "necessary evil".

9) If we assuage our conscience and condone such delay in a mechanical manner by treating it as a "necessary evil", it will look more and more necessary and less and less evil. We are unable to persuade ourselves with this line of argument.

10) In the facts and circumstances of these cases, the delay is enormous and not properly explained. In absence of showing "sufficient cause", the IAs cannot be allowed. Accordingly, IAs are dismissed.

11) Resultantly, writ appeals are also dismissed.

     (SUJOY PAUL)                        (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
       JUDGE                                     JUDGE
soumya
          Digitally signed by
          SOUMYA RANJAN
          DALAI
          Date: 2021.06.17
          14:40:50 +05'30'