Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh vs Deputy Forest Range Officer South ... on 12 January, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 12 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 4298 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. MAHENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BABUSINGH RAJPUT
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE AURIA, TEHSL
AND DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MALKHAN SINGH S/O SHRI BABU SINGH RAJPUT
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE AURIA TEH.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. BARKHA S/O SANTOSH SINGH RAJPUT OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE VILLAGE AURIA TEH. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUKRAM SINGH S/O PRATAP SINGH RAJPUT OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE VILLAGE AURIA TEH. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ROHAN HARNE - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. DEPUTY FOREST RANGE OFFICER SOUTH SAGAR DEPUTY
FOREST RANGE OFFICER TAH. AND DISTT. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DISTRIC. SOUTH DIVISION
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - PANEL LAWYER WITH SHRI KAMALNATH
NAYAK - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard the matter finally with the consent of both the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
The petitioners have filed this petition while praying for following reliefs :-
(1) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside
the impugned order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Sagar,
District-Sagar (M.P.) in Appeal No. 85B/2012, in the interest of justice.
(ii) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss
the Appeal filed by the Respondent under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, in the
interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners along
with cost of the petition.
As detailed in the body of the petition, the petitioners were owner of the land
bearing Khasra No.590/6, 590/7, 590/9 and 590/4 situated in District-Sagar. The said
parcels of land were acquired by the Forest Department. Thereafter, vide order dated
07.07.2015 (Annexure P/4) compensation towards the acquisition of the petitioners' land
was awarded to the tune of Rs.1,64,50,049/-. The said order dated 07.07.2015 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar was not being complied with, therefore, the petitioners
made number of efforts for execution of said award. Thereafter, the respondents
preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, assailing the legality
and validity of the award dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure P/4). There was delay of
approximately 12 months in preferring the appeal and despite of the delay, appeal was
taken cognizance of vide order dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure P/9). The order dated
20.02.2017 was assailed by the present petitioners by filing a petition being
W.P.No.6217/2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
28.06.2017 (Annexure P/10) by directing that the Forest Department would be at liberty
to file an application for condonation of delay which shall be dealt with by the appellate
authority. Thereafter, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation dated 01.11.2017
(Annexure P/11) was filed by the respondents before the appellate authority making an
efforts to explain the delay which occasioned in filing of appeal under Section 17 of the
Forest Act, 1927. Thereafter, vide order date 04.12.2017 (Annexure P/13), the delay was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
condoned.
Assailing the order dated 04.12.2017 the issue was again agitated by the present
petitioners by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.1165/2018 and this Court again remitted
back the matter to pass a speaking order on application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter, an order dated 29.01.2019 (Annexire P/17) was passed and assailing the said
order, again another petition was filed by the present petitioner vide W.P.No.1381/2019
(Annexure P/18) which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2019 directing the
Collector Sagar to pass a reasoned order while adjudicating upon the issue of limitation.
Then again vide impugned order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P/1), the Collector Sagar-
cum-Appellate Authority allowed the application for condondation of delay filed by the
respondents. Thus, assailing the said order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P/1), this petition
is filed.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present case, the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Settlement Officer had passed original order on 07.07.2015 and the appeal
was preferred before the Appellate Authority i.e. Collector Sagar on 04.07.2016. It is
contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the period of limitation was 90 days
whereas the appeal was preferred with a delay of 362 days. The Collector while passing
the impugned order, proceeded in a purely mechanical manner while observing that as the
litigant is State and therefore, there can not be strict compliance of the rules of limitation
and while taking recourse to a liberal approach, has allowed the application for
condonation of delay.
A perusal of the operative paragraph of the impugned order reflects that the
reasons which were assigned by the respondents, were not sufficient and the respondents
made an effort to demonstrate that as there were correspondences by which, the opinion
and guidance regarding further action was sought, accordingly, the delay occasioned in
filing of the appeal. It is contended by the counsel that the grounds that, there were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
correspondences between the different authorities of the State, were not sufficient to
condone the delay and no leniency is granted to the State in the matter of condonation of
delay. It is contended by the counsel that the Apex Court in number of decisions has
held that the State is also required to explain the delay as an individual litigant and merely
issuance of correspondences by one authority to another authority is not a sufficient
reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that in view of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the cases of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India
Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, Amalendu Kumar Bera and
Others vs. State of West Bangal reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52 and in the case of
Union of India and Others vs. Tat Yodogawa Limited and Another reported in
(2015) 9 SCC 102, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that in the present
case, this is third round of litigation by which, the petitioners have assailed the
interlocutory order passed by the Appellate Authority by which, the delay was condoned.
It is contended by the counsel that in terms of the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.1381/2019, the Appellate Authority considered the stand of the rival parties.
Upon considering the case of rival parties, the Appellate Authority has passed an
elaborate order which consist of cogent reasons and the Authority while dealing with the
explanation put forth by the respondents in the application for condonation of delay, has
rightly condoned the same. Therefore, counsel submits that the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.460 /1987 passed on 19.02.198 (AIR 1987 SC 1353) has considered the
parameters which are required to be mulled over while dealing with the application
submitted by the State for condonation of delay. It is contended by the counsel that in
terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.3337/1997 (CC 112/97) passed on 03.02.1996 (AIR 1997 SC 1390), the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
impugned being just and proper, requires no interference.
Heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.
In the present case, the order by Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer
was passed on 07.07.2015 by which, the compensation was awarded to the present
petitioners. The appeal against the said order was filed on 04.07.2016. As per the statute
the period of limitation to prefer an appeal is three months and in the present case, as per
the petitioners there was delay of 362 days. The respondents in support of their
application for condonation of delay, submitted a detailed return arguments and in the
same it was explained by the respondents that the factum of order dated 07.07.2015
(Annexure P/4) was brought to the notice of Commissioner Division Sagar by Divisional
Forest Officer, Forest Division South, Sagar by his letter dated 01.10.2015. The
Commissioner Division Sagar vide his letter dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P/5) for further
course of action, made a request to Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal on
26.12.2015 and as there was no instructions again a reminder dated 25.02.2016 was sent.
Thereafter, a reply dated 16.03.2016 was received and in the meantime, the petitioners
herein preferred another petition vide W.P.No.4863/2016 and thus, on 04.07.2016
(Annexure P/13), the appeal was preferred. Thus, as per stand of the State there was no
willful or deliberate delay in preferring the appeal and as the instructions from the higher
authorities from Bhopal were awaited, the delay was occasioned which was inadvertent.
The Collector, District-Sagar while considering the said application observing that the
properties are in still possession of the present petitioners, has allowed the application
while observing that the same would not cause may prejudice to the present petitioners.
In the present case, the impugned order speaks about W.P.No.4863/2016 which
was filed by the petitioners, but in the entire petition, there is no reference to said petition
i.e. W.P.No.4863/2016. At page no.120 of the petition, there is covering memo issued
by the Registry of this Court in W.P.No.4863/2016. But in the entire petition, there is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
whisper regarding which issue, the said petition was filed by the present petitioners.
If the case in hand and the impugned order passed is examined carefully, the same
would reveal that in the present case, an application for condonation of delay submitted
by the State has been allowed. Whether the delay could have been condoned or not, this
is a mute question which requires consideration.
The Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana vs. Chandra Mani and
Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 while dealing with the case where the condonation
of delay was sought by the State Government has held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under
:-
"7. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh [(1984) 4 SCC 66] , a Bench of three Judges
had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of
justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned.
In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 172] , a
Bench of two Judges considered the question of the limitation in an appeal filed by
the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do
substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression
'Âœsufficient causeÂ' is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a
meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for
the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has
been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the
message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the
hierarchy. This Court reiterated that the expression 'Âœevery day's delay must be
explained'Â does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine
must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial
justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have
vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no
presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable
negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by
resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account
of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from
this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution
of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a
private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands
that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment
and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for
according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant. The delay was
accordingly condoned.
8. Experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal)
and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-
pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to
understand though more difficult to approve. The State which represent collective
cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts,
therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the
course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to
scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in
presenting the appeal. Delay was accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and
the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties. In Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra [1987 Supp
SCC 339] , this Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice-oriented
approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was
allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious
disposal in accordance with law.
9. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142] , it
was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel
could be laid. The expression Âœsufficient cause must receive a liberal construction
so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are
required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking
condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet
another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government
are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate
analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and
institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private
individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for
governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take
responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different
complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where
public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the
part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes
with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for
purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the
consideration that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and
characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Government decisions are
proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural
red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not
impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government
must have Âœa little play at the joints. Due recognition of these limitations on
governmental functioning of course, within reasonable limits' is necessary if the
judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and
unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects
in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of governmental functioning is procedural
delay incidental to the decision-making process. The delay of over one year was
accordingly condoned."
The Apex Court again in the case of Special Tehsildar Land, Acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
Kerala reported in AIR 1996 SC 2750 has held in paragraph 2 as under :-
"2. I t is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the
Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day-to-day delay. The
transaction of the business of the Government was being done leisurely by officers
who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal
responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they
take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do
not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one
of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation
of the delay to the satisfaction of the court and in matters of Limitation Act made no
distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard
of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. It would result in public mischief
by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of
the Court should be pragmatic but not pedantic. Under those circumstances, the
Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay
without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application in
the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting
aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned."
The Apex Court again in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Subhash
Singh reported in AIR 1997 SC 1390 : (1997) 4 SCC 430 has held in paragraph 5 as
under:-
"5. It is true and we are alive to the fact that when the officer is to take steps as per
the decision, some delay may occasion and generally the courts would be reluctant to
impose costs personally against the officers. But the officers are required to go to the
court, give the appropriate explanation and satisfy the court that they were
prevented by circumstances for non-compliance within the time specified by the
court. It is equally salutary to note that if the High Court feels it necessary to impose
costs personally against the officers, the Court is required to enquire after giving
notice and reasonable opportunity to the officer who could not be impleaded earlier
or was not on record, to explain the reasons for non-compliance of the order or
decision taken to file the proceedings. Take for instance, delay in filing of an appeal
or revision. It is a known fact that in transaction of the government business, none
would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels.
It is not uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused to confer advantage to
the opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or persons are well
connected/influential or due to obvious considerations. The courts, therefore, do not
adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay. The imposition of costs on officers
for filing appeals causes public injustice and gives the manipulators an opportunity to
compound the camouflage. Secondly, the imposition of costs personally against the
officers will be counter-productive and officers would desist to pursue genuine cases
of public benefit or importance or of far-reaching effect on public administration or
exchequer deflecting the course of justice. The court before imposing costs personally
against the officers should be circumspect and keep at the back of its mind the facts
and circumstances in each case. Otherwise, public justice will suffer irremediably.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
Unfortunately, in this case the delay in compliance is of one year and five months and
the officer has not explained. The High Court was constrained to impose personal
costs against the officer. Under the circumstances, we do not think that it is a fit case
for interference."
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the Apex Court considered the aspect that
even there is lapse in transaction of the Government business and the stakes involved are
high, the Court should not insist for strict proof of everyday delay.
In the present case, an order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 07.07.2015
reflects that there is an order to pay a compensation of Rs.1,64,50, 049/- and thus,
looking to the stakes involved, the one of the primary consideration while dealing with an
application under Section 5 of condonation of delay, was the liability which was fastened
upon the State regarding payment of the amount of compensation. Moreover, in the
present case, undisputedly there is no explanation so far as day to day delay is concerned
but, it was explained by the respondents before the Appellate Authority that as the order
was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, the matter was
referred by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Sagar, District Sagar, later on to
seek guidance as regards the further action the correspondences were made with the
Additional Chief Conservator of Forest Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. Upon receipt of reply
by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest on 16.03.2016, another petition was filed
by the petitioners vide W.P.No.4863/2016 and later on, on 04.07.2016, the appeal was
preferred.
A perusal of the impugned order reflects that firstly there is no inordinate delay in
preferring the appeal. The reasons which were assigned by the respondents regarding
condonation of delay were sufficient and satisfactory. The referring of matter to the
Additional Chief Conservator of Forest Bhopal is also not disputed and upon receiving
response from the Chief Conservator of Forest, the appeal was preferred. The Court
below while considering the explanation furnished by the respondents, has allowed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
application.
So far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on the decision of Postmaster
General and Others (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the judgment by the
Division Bench of High Court was dated 11.09.2009 and the certified copy of the same
was applied on 08.01.2010. The said certified copy was received by the Department on
the same day and there was no explanation regarding not applying for certified copy.
Thereafter, inordinate delay of 427 days, the appeals were filed. The affidavits which
were filed by the authorities therein in support of application for condonation of delay,
were considered by the Apex Court in paragraph 26 of the order and accordingly,
considering the fact there was absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, the Apex
Court declined to condone the delay merely on the ground that the litigant is a
Government.
The Apex Court in paragraph 28 thereof, while observing that in the facts and
circumstances held that the delay could not have been condonded. Paragraph 28 is
reproduced hereinasunder:-
"28. 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 bona fides, 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)
The Apex Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera and Others (supra) in paragraph 10
has held as under:-
"10. In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly earlier objection filed by the
respondent State under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on 17-8-2010. Instead
of challenging the said order the respondent State after about one year filed another
objection on 15-9-2011 under Section 47 of the Code which was finally rejected by
the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was issued by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
executing court that the respondent preferred a civil revision against the first order
dated 17-8-2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough in
the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which
would entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. True
it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of
delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there are
serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree
passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file
objection under Section 47 till the decree-holder puts the decree in execution. As
noticed above, the decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration of
title and permanent injunction restraining the respondent State from interfering with
the possession of the suit property of the appellant-plaintiff. It is evident that when
the State tried to interfere with possession the decree-holder had no alternative but to
levy the execution case for execution of the decree with regard to interference with
possession. In our opinion their delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground
to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order refusing to entertain
objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered
by the High Court while deciding the petition for condoning the delay. Merely
because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and
shall not be mechanically considered and in the absence of 'sufficient cause' delay
shall not be condoned.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has also discussed the facts of that case and in paragraph 10, the
Apex Court considered the aspect that in that case the objections were filed by the State,
were dismissed on 17.08.2010. After a lapse of one year another objection was filed on
15.09.2011 and after a writ of attachment was issued by the executing court, the
respondents therein preferred a Civil Revision against the first order dated 17.08.2010
along with an application for condonation of delay. The Court while considering the facts
that there were serious laches and negligence on the part of the State held that merely
because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall
not be mechanically considered. Therefore, while considering the lapses on the part of
the State, the Apex Court declined to condone the delay.
Thereafter, again in the case of Tat Yodogawa Limited and Another (supra), the
Apex Court in paragraph 5 has also held as under:-
"5. It is further stated in the rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit on behalf of
the respondents that "such delay is always beyond the control of especially in
government matters as the file has to be routed through several sections of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
Department". We are aware of the fact that the Government being impersonal takes
longer time than the private bodies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there
must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Court observed that there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause
for such delay. If the ground was that the file was routed through several sections of the
Department in the said case, there was no explanation as observed by the Apex Court in
paragraph 5 accordingly, declined to interfere.
In the present case, the explanation put forth by the State was satisfactory and is
sufficient and it was not the case of the petitioners before the Authority that there was
deliberate delay on the part of the respondents. Even the grounds incorporated in the
petition reveal that it is not the stand of the present petitioners that there was deliberate
and willful delay. On the contrary, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that
the moving of a file from one office to another or the mutual correspondences, is not a
good ground to condone the delay even if the litigant is the State.
The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 in paragraph 11 has held as under :
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are
meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy
promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage
caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such
legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and
wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would
sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the
courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential
anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined
in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare
that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy
the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal
remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it can safely be concluded that rules of
limitation are not meant to destroy substantive rights of parties. The authority is only
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
required to ensure that party concerned has not resorted to dilatory tactics.
Therefore, an application for condonation of delay is required to be considered
firstly on the ground that the delay should not be deliberate or willful and the parties
concerned have not resorted to dilatory tactics.
In the present case, the delay was neither deliberate nor willful and was dully
explained and also looking to the stake involved, in the considered view of this Court, the
Collector District Sagar did not commit any error in allowing the application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
matter. Accordingly, the writ petition having no substance stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 1/18/2023
4:50:31 PM
