Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S. Shiv Shakti Land And Finance ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 788 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF
PUBLIC TRUST, SUB DIVISION, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/STATE).
AND
JAVERI SHRIRAM MANDIR, BAJRANGPURA DEWAS
LOK NYAS, THROUGH VYAVASTHAPAK NYASI, SHRI
BHARAT KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI LAXMINARAYAN
JHAVERI R/O IIND FLOOR, JHAVERI BUILDING, 1
KUMHAR TUKDA, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI AYUSHYAMAN CHOUDHARY, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1029 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND REGISTRAR,
PUBLIC TRUST, DEWAS DIVISION, DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
2
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE).
AND
1. RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHREE RAMESH
KUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, 54, SHALINI ROAD,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHREE RAMESH
KUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 54, SHALINI ROAD,
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHREE RAMESH
KUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 54, SHALINI ROAD,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAJENDRA KUMAR JHAVERI S/O LATE SHRI
LAXMINARAYANJI JHAVERI, MANAGING
TRUSTEE JHAVERI SHRI RAM MANDIR TRUST,
JHAVERI SHRI RAM MANDIR, BAJRANGPURA,
DEWAS AND ALSO R/O HOUSE NO. 1 KUMHAR
TUKDA, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
WRIT APPEAL No. 1030 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF
PUBLIC TRUST, DEWAS DIVISION, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE).
AND
1. M/S. SHIV SHAKTI LAND AND FINANCE
THROUGH PARTNER: RAKESH KUMAR
AGARWAL S/O SHREE RAMESH KUMAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
3
AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 54, SHALINI ROAD,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJENDRA KUMAR JHAVERI S/O LATE SHRI
LAXMINARAYANJI JHAVERI, MANAGING
TRUSTEE JHAVERI SHRI RAM MANDIR TRUST,
JHAVERI SHRI RAM MANDIR, BAJRANGPURA,
DEWAS AND ALSO AT R/O- HOUSE NO. 1,
KUMHAR TUKDA, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
WRIT APPEAL No. 60 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, OFFICE DISTRICT,
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REGISTRAR, PUBLIC
TR U S T, DEWAS DIVISION, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE).
AND
1. RAWALDAS RAJANI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
MANOJ RAJANI S/O SHRI RAWALDAS RAJANI,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, 118 CIVIL LINES NEAR
COLLECTORATE DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAWALDAS RAJANI DECEASED THR LRS
KAILASH RAJANI S/O RAWALDAS RAJANI
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, 118 CIVIL INES NEAR
COLLECTORATE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAWALDAS RAJANI DECEASED THR LRS MS.
RITU CHAWLANI D/O SHRI ANAND CHAWLANI
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 13, PROFESSOR COLONY
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PITAMBARDAS VISHNANI S/O SHRI ISHWARDAS
VISHNANI OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, 51
DAYANAND CHOWK DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
4
5. KAMAL KUMAR VISHNANI S/O SHRI TIKAMDASJI
VISHNANI OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 51
DAYANAND CHOWK DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE
LAKSHMINARAYAN JAVERI H. NO. 1 KUMHAR
TUKDA, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)
T h is appeal coming on for hearing on condonation of delay and
admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the
following:
ORDER
These appeals are being heard and decided by a common order since
all the appeals involve similar question.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of Writ Appeal No.
788/2018 is being taken into consideration.
3. This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred being
aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2214/2012
(Annexure A/3).
4. The respondents herein had filed the writ petition against the order
dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer & Registrar of Public
Trust, Dewas cancelling the permission given to one of the trustees namely
Rajendra Kumar, who is the respondent in the present case, to dispose of the
trust property. The writ petition No. 2214/2012 came to be decided vide order
dated 09.02.2017 and other connected writ petitions were decided on different
Signature Not Verified
dates. Being aggrieved, the appellant State (respondents in the writ petition) has
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
filed these writ appeals.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
all the writ appeals have raised preliminary objections with regard to the huge
delay and laches in filing the present writ appeals. In view of the aforesaid
objection, I.A.No. 2987/2018 application seeking condonation of delay is being
taken up.
6. The present writ appeal was filed on 15.06.2018 where as the date
of impugned order is 09.02.2017. The writ appeal has been filed by the State of
M.P. after a gap of about 16 months. The certified copy of the impugned order
was filed on 31.01.2023. If the limitation is calculated, the appeal is time barred
by about 500 days. According to the application for condonation of delay, the
Officer-in-Charge sought opinion from the Government Advocate vide letter
dated 22.12.2017 and the opinion was received on 28.12.2017 to file the writ
appeal. Thereafter, the opinion was forwarded to the higher authorities seeking
permission from the Law Department and the Law Department vide letter dated
16.04.2018 has granted permission to file the writ appeal which was receive in
the department on 08.05.2018. During Court summer vacation, the Officer-in-
Charge contacted the office of Advocate General and the appeal was got
prepared. After reopening, the writ appeal was filed without any further delay.
7 . Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the delay is
genuine which has been caused due to procedural formalities and the same
being bona fide on the part of the appellant, deserves to be condoned. He
further contended that the other connected three writ appeals arise out of the
same cause of action and therefore, the delay in filing those writ appeals needs
to be condoned as well.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/State in support of his contentions
has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Chandramani and Others reported in 1996 (3) SCC 132 wherein it has been
held thus:
"When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it
i s common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and
the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making,
file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the
State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve,
but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is
axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially
at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table
to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay
intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of
procedural red tape in the pro cess of their making decision is a
co mmo n feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not
impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such
default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate
analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause"
should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented
approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for
explaining every day's delay."
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by filing
reply to the application for condonation of delay contended that it is not
disputed that the order passed by the learned writ Court was not in the
knowledge of the appellant since inception. The appellants have filed the writ
appeals as a counter blast, this writ appeal has been filed wholly on untenable
grounds. With a view to overcome the statutory bar, the present application
seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The appellants have not been able
to explain the day-to-day delay for condoning the same. In fact, the permission
to file the writ appeal was granted on 28.12.2017. However, the appeal was
filed after a lapse of more than six months for which there is no explanation.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
laches alone.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his above
contentions relied on various judgements of the Apex Court which are as
follows:
In the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India
Ltd. & Anr(2012) 3 SCC 563, it is held that merely because the
Government is involved, different yardsticks cannot be laid down for
condoning the delay. The SLPs dismissed due to delay of 427 days.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh And Others Vs. Bherulal
reported in (2020)10 SCC 654, the Apex Court held that unavailability of
documents and the process of arranging the documents and bureaucratic
process works cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing of an
appeal by the State. The delay of 663 days was not condoned and the SLP
was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
In the case of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Chaitram Maywade
reported in (2020)10 SCC 667, it was held that the Law Department took
17 months in permitting filing of SLP. Officers responsible cannot just sit
on the files and delay its filing. The SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs.
35,000/- as delay of 588 days has occurred.
In the case of Govt. of India Vs. Md Wasim Akram in SLP (Cri)
Diary No. 10760/2020, although it was a good case on merits, the
threshold bar of delay and latches cannot be ignored. SLP was dismissed
with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- for a delay of 254 days.
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Sabha
Narain; (2022) 9 SCC 266, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
explanation for condonation of delay giving only a saga of moving
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
of file from one place to the other and that too with long interludes is
not acceptable for condoning the delay as it shows the lethargy and
incompetence of the petitioner. Such kind of cases have already
been categorized by the Apex Court as "certificate cases" filed with
the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the
ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has
dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court has deprecated such practice
and process.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. In the present case, there is delay of more than 500 days in filing
the writ appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay, no plausible
explanation has been put forth by the appellant/State, therefore, the present
appeal suffers from inordinate delay and laches and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Whilst, it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to the
proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless
such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate latches would always be
relevant in writ actions and writ Courts naturally ought to be reluctant in
exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over
wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence sitters cannot be allowed to
barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience and vigilant
citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple
occasions, it has been restated by the Apex Court for there are implicit
limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
14. In the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerela, (2009) 2 SCC 479
the Apex Court has observed that " it is also well-settled principle of law that
"delay defeats equity"..... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied
to them on the ground of delay and laches.
15. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law and the fact that the
delay has not been properly explained, I.A.No.2987/2018 seeking condonation
of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the W.A. No. 788/2018 stands
dismissed.
16. Since the other connected writ appeals arise out of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge relying on the order passed in Writ Petition
No. 2214/2012, hence, W.A.No. 60/2023, W.P.No. 1030/2022 and W.A.No.
1029/2022 also stand dismissed.
Let copy of this order be placed in the record of the aforesaid connected
writ appeals.
No order as to cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 8/29/2023
7:00:51 PM
