Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Co. Ltd. And Others on 6 May, 2024
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062444-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 2024:PHHC:062444-DB
LPA No. 1128 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
Kulwinder Singh .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present letters patent appeal, which is barred by
380 days in filing the same, is to the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWP-2946-2023, Kulwinder Singh vs. Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. and others.
2. The present is a classic case of a luxury litigation initiated by a Non-
resident Indian, who is settled in Canada through Power of Attorney regarding his
service, from which he had taken voluntary retirement to go to Canada in June,
2013. The sufficient cause which is sought to be made out is that the appellant is a
person of meager means and had to arrange for the funds for filing an appeal apart
from the fact that he had to file applications under The Right to Information Act,
2005.
3. The said explanation as such is in total contradiction with the status of
the appellant, who is residing abroad and we are not in a position to swallow the
said explanation except with a pinch of salt. The terms 'sufficient cause' has been
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062444-DB
LPA No. 1128 of 2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:062444-DB
explained time and again by the Apex Court. The learned Single Judge has also
noticed that it is a case where the claim for promotion to Upper Division Clerk
has been sought to be raked up after more than 10 years, writ petition being filed
in the year 2023 by a person who has voluntarily retired in 2013 and is a migrant
to Canada in search of greener pastures.
4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case
is made out to condone the delay in view of the settled law. Reliance can be
placed upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma
Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation &
another, 2010 (5) SCC 459 and Isha Bhattacharya vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy & others, 2014 (4) SCC (Crl.) 450 wherein it has
specifically been held that if the explanation is fanciful and there is lack of bona
fide, then the delay is not to be condoned. Relevant portion of the judgment reads
as under:
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles
that can broadly be culled out are:
i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with
an application for condonation of delay, for the courts
are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged
to remove injustice.
ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be
understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and
purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms
are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining factsituation.
iii) Substantial justice being paramount and
pivotal the technical considerations should not be
given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
iv) No presumption can be attached to
deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062444-DB
LPA No. 1128 of 2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:062444-DB
the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note
of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party
seeking condonation of delay is a significant and
relevant fact.
vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to
strict proof should not affect public justice and cause
public mischief because the courts are required to be
vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no
real failure of justice.
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it
cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate
delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to
the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas
to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the
first one warrants strict approach whereas the second
calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a
party relating to its inaction or negligence are
relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so
as the fundamental principle is that the courts are
required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in
respect of both parties and the said principle cannot
be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the
courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side
unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets
away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation
by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of
limitation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinized and the approach should be based on the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062444-DB
LPA No. 1128 of 2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:062444-DB
paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
xiii) The State or a public body or an entity
representing a collective cause should be given some
acceptable latitude.
16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some
more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario.
They are: -
a) An application for condonation of delay
should be drafted with careful concern and not in a
half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the
courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock
of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is
seminal to justice dispensation system.
b) An application for condonation of delay
should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the
base of individual philosophy which is basically
subjective.
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down
regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion,
yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and
collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made
as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as
a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical
propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner
requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
parameters."
5. Resultantly, we decline to condone the delay and the appeal is also
accordingly dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
06.05.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
