Madhya Pradesh High Court
Junior Engineer vs Smt. Gayatri Malviya on 5 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 5095 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JUNIOR ENGINEER MPMKVV CO.
CHICHOLI TEHSIL CHICHOLI DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.P.M.K.V.V. CO.
LTD. SADAR BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
......APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK ARJARIA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. GAYATRI MALVIYA W/O LATE SHRI
AHAY MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE BORGAON TEHSIL
BAHINSDEHI DISTRICT BETUL (M.P)
2. TAPEESH S/O LATE SHRI AJAY MALVIYA
R/O VILLAGE BORGAON, TEHS.
BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT BETUL (M.P)
3. SMT. PRAMILA W/O SHRI GAYAPRASAD
MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O
- 2 -
VILLAGE BORGAON, TEHS. BHAINSDEHI,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI GAYA PRASAD S/O SHRI GANESH
MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BORGAON, TEHS. BHAINSDEHI,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRI ANIL S/O SHRI GAYAPRASAD
MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BORGAON, TEHS. BHAINSDEHI,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRI KAILASH S/O SHRI SHANKARLAL
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O
PATAUWAPURA, TEHS. SHAHPUR
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. RAJNI ARYA W/O SHRI ARJUN R/O
SONI MOHALLA, CHICHOLI, TEHS.
CHICHOLI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
............RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.K TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT - 6 AND SHRI
PRAVEED NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.12982/2023, which is an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing of
the misc. appeal.
- 3 -
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 199 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that misc. appeal has been preferred against the
final award dated 18.10.2022 passed by MACT whereby the
respondents/claimants have been awarded an amount of Rs.12,46,900/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum. He submits that in due process,
required permission for filing the appeal was sought by the appellants
from the concerned officer and after legal opinion, it was referred to the
counsel for filing the appeal, in which delay of 199 days has occurred,
which being based on bonafides deserves to be condoned. The application
is supported by affidavit of Hitesh Vashishtha. Placing reliance on
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs.
Lipok AO and others (2005) 3 SCC 752 and with the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel prays for condonation of delay in filing of
the appeal.
4. By filing reply, the application has been opposed vehemently by
the Counsel for the respondents, with the contention that no reasonable
explanation of delay of 199 days has been given in the application and no
proof in respect of seeking of alleged permission and legal opinion, has
- 4 -
been placed on record. With these submissions learned counsel for the
respondents prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In respect of delay of 199 days, following averments have been
made in para 3 of the application :-
"That, in due process, required permission was sought by the appellants
from the concerned Officer and after legal opinion, it was then referred
to the counsel of the appellants and, thus, some (199 days) delay has
caused in filing the instant misc. appeal, which is bonafide and deserves
to be condoned".
7. In the present case, award was passed on 18.10.2022, certified
copy of which was applied for on 28.10.2022, which was delivered to the
appellants on 10.11.2022. What is the due process fixed in the appellants'
department; when required permission was sought from the concerned
officer; when it was granted; when legal opinion was sought; by which
counsel opinion was granted and when matter was referred to the counsel
for filing misc. appeal, nothing has been mentioned in the application.
8. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion there is no
sufficient or reasonable explanation for condonation of delay in filing of
Misc. Appeal. Even otherwise the application for condonation of delay is
- 5 -
very sketchy and does not give any/reasonable explanation about the
delay of 199 days.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs.
Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17 SCC
448, has observed that the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale
claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help
those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights". The
aforesaid judgment has further been followed recently in the case of Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC
10. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay
of about 199 days in filing of the Misc. Appeal, the I.A.No.12982/2023
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the Misc. Appeal is
also dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
