Manipur High Court
Union Of India And Others vs M/371458 Wo/Pharmacist on 17 September, 2021
KABORAMB Digitally signed
by
AM KABORAMBAM
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2021.09.17
Item No. 15-16
(Through Video Conferencing)
SINGH 17:16:05 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WA) NO. 68 OF 2020
Union of India and others
... Applicants
-Vs.-
M/371458 WO/Pharmacist
AK Tikendrajit Singh and others
... Respondents
With
MC(WA) NO. 70 OF 2020
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
17.09.2021
(Sanjay Kumar, CJ)
The Union of India and the Director General, Assam Rifles,
Shillong, Meghalaya, filed these two applications seeking condonation of
the delay of 11(eleven) days in the presentation of the two writ appeals.
2. MC(WA) No. 68 of 2020 was filed seeking condonation of
11 days delay in the presentation of the appeal against the common
judgment and order dated 23/01/2020 passed by a learned Judge of this
Court, in so far as it pertained to W.P.(C) No. 598 of 2018, while MC(WA)
No.70 of 2020 was filed seeking condonation of 11 days delay in the
presentation of another appeal against the very same judgment and order,
in so far as it pertained to Writ Petition (C) No. 149 of 2017.
3. Heard Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC, appearing for the
applicants; Mr. Kh. Lupenjit, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondents in MC(WA) No. 68 of 2020; and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondents in MC(WA) No.70 of 2020.
4. Though the delay in the filing of these two appeals is not
substantial in itself, being a mere 11(eleven) days, this Court is deeply
shocked by the careless manner in which these applications have been
framed and filed. It is indeed distressing to note the deplorable degree of
casualness that is displayed, as a matter of course, by authorities while
seeking condonation of the delay on their part in filing appeals. The
applications on hand are prime examples of this uncaring attitude.
5. Be it noted that the common judgment and order,
presently sought to be appealed against, was delivered by the learned
Judge on 23/01/2020. Paragraph 3 of these two condone delay
applications is identical and reads to the effect that the learned counsel
applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order and after
obtaining the same, the certified copy was intimated to the applicants/
appellants for necessary information by the learned counsel. The
paragraph then goes on to state that the copy of the judgment and order
along with a copy of the legal opinion rendered by the Central Government
Counsel was received on 30/01/2020.
Page 2
6. The import of the aforestated paragraph is that the
certified copy of the judgment and order was obtained and the same,
along with a copy of the legal opinion, were received on 30/01/2020.
However, the record reflects that an application for the certified copy of
the judgment and order was made on 24/01/2020; the certified copy was
made ready on 03/02/2020; and it was made over to the applicant on
04/02/2020. Therefore, the question of the certified copy of the judgment
and order being received on 30/01/2020, as set out in paragraph 3 of both
the applications, does not arise.
To compound this error, paragraph 10 of both the
applications, which is again identical, sets out the calculation of delay and
the date shown against the words: 'Certified copy obtained' is '4/4/2020'.
As already pointed out supra, the certified copy of the judgment and order
was made over on 04/02/2020 and not 04/04/2020. The mention of the
date '4/4/2020' in paragraph 10 is therefore factually incorrect.
7. That apart, paragraph 10 does not even explain as to how
the total delay was calculated as 52 days and as to why 41 days were
deducted therefrom, so as to arrive at the final delay of 11 days.
Significantly, paragraph 10 also states that the period was calculated from
23/01/2020 to 15/03/2020. The date '15/03/2020' is obviously linked to
the Supreme Court's order with regard to extension of limitation owing to
Page 3
the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is no explanation offered as to
why no steps were taken by the applicants from 04/02/2020, when the
certified copy of the judgment and order was delivered, till 15/03/2020.
8. The above facts manifest the lackadaisical manner in
which these applications were filed. Further, the total non-application of
mind by the applicants and their learned counsel to the correct facts and
dates is patently demonstrable. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, is ordinarily within the judicial discretion of the
Court, if sufficient grounds are made out therefor. While applying for such
discretionary relief, an applicant is expected to be diligent and present his
bonafides. Neither of these requirements stands fulfilled in so far as these
applications are concerned. They seem to have been filed rather
mechanically, taking it for granted that the delay would be condoned
without question.
9. In any event, we find no explanation forthcoming for the
delay on the part of the applicants from 04/02/2020, when the certified
copy was delivered, till 15/03/2020, even if their claim that they would be
entitled to the benefit of the extension of limitation is to be accepted. Be it
noted that the lockdown linked to the pandemic was actually imposed on
25/03/2020 and therefore, the delay would be more than the 11 days put
forth by the applicants.
Page 4
The applications are therefore found to be utterly bereft of
merit apart from lacking in bonafides and they are accordingly dismissed.
In consequence, both the unnumbered writ appeals shall
also stand dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through
whatsapp to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
bidya
Page 5
