Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagar Palik Nigam vs Mohammad Shakir Khan on 25 May, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 25th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No.720 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NAGAR PALIK NIGAM, AYUKT UJJAIN, AGAR ROAD, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI BALENDU DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
MOHAMMAD SHAKIR KHAN S/O SHRI MOHAMMAD SHABIR KHAN
1. OCCUPATION: NOKRI, GREENPARK COLONY HARIFATAK
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY STHANIYA SHASAN
2.
VIBHAG VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been
filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07/09/2016 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1079/2016.
2. I.A. No.4769/2022, an application for condonation of delay in
filing the present writ appeal is taken up.
3. The present writ appeal is barred by 2026 days.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing
of the impugned order dated 07/09/2016, the same was sent for seeking
legal opinion on 05/12/2016. The legal opinion was received on
30/01/2017. Thereafter, W.A. No.209/2017 was filed and the same was
dismissed with liberty to file a review petition before the learned writ
Court. Then, review petition was filed bearing No.1857/2019 and the
same was rejected as time barred. Being aggrieved by the orders, the
present writ appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the delay
is genuine which has been caused due to procedural formalities and the
same is bonafide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, delay in filing
the appeal deserves to be condoned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 is 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 process of their making
decision is a common 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."
7. In view of the settled legal principles of law when the delay and
latches in filing the writ petitions/appeals cannot be brushed aside,
otherwise, the same would amount to reviewing a dead/stale claim.
Various judgments have been passed by Apex Court which are as under:-
. 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.
8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
9. In the present appeal, there is a delay of 2026 days in filing the writ
appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay, no plausible
explanation has been put forth by the appellant for such delay, therefore,
the present appeal suffers from inordinate delay and latches and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
10. 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.
11. In the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerela, 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 latches.
12. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law and the fact that the
delay has not been properly explained, I.A.No.4769/2022 seeking
condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
13. Consequently, writ appeal also stands dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (ANIL VERMA)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
Aiyer*
Digitally signed by
JAGADISHAN AIYER
Date: 2023.05.26
12:22:32 +05'30'
