Rajasthan High Court

Secretary Gramin Vikas And ... vs Kedar Lal Sen S/O Shri Ganpat Lal ... on 21 October, 2021

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 869/2018

                                            In

                S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6101/2002

1.        Secretary      Gramin         Vikas       &     Panchayati    Raj   Deptt
          Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.        Director,   Gramin          Vikas       &     Panchayati     Raj    Deptt.
          Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.        Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kota.
4.        Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur,
          Distt. Kota.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                        Versus
Kedar Lal Sen S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sen, aged 52 Years, resident
of Gram Budadeet, The, Degod, Distt. Kota.
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini Additional Advocate General.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

21/10/2021

Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing this

appeal.

This appeal is time barred by 245 days.

Learned State Counsel, referring to the averments

made in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also

additional affidavit filed subsequently, would submit that the delay

has been occasioned on account of movement of files, obtaining

legal opinion etc., which is in the normal course of transaction of

(2 of 5) [SAW-869/2018]

official business in the Government offices, without there being

any lack of promptness. He would also submit that as the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law,

interest of justice would demand that interference be made with

the order so that undue benefit may not be claimed by the

respondent-writ petitioner.

We have gone through the application for condonation

of delay as also the additional affidavit filed by the appellants.

The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act and the additional affidavit do not travel beyond

rhetoric of usual delay caused in movement of files from one table

to the other. Lack of promptitude and lethargy in movement of

files in filing of appeals/petitions by the State was deprecated by

their Lordships in the Supreme Court in two recent judicial

pronouncements.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V.

Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849, it was found that the

appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause

shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of

documents and the process of arranging documents and also a

reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual

context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its

earlier decision, observed as below-

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

(3 of 5) [SAW-869/2018]

"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

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 bonafide, 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.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!"

In another decision, in the case of Government of

Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. M/s. Borse

Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC

(4 of 5) [SAW-869/2018]

Online SC 233 also, in the factual context of long delay of 75

days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient

cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65

of the said judgment as below -

"65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being:

"2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion.

3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer- in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019.

4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay.

5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned."

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied

with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as

below :

"66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also."

If we look into the cause, which has been shown in the

application and the additional affidavit which has been filed, we

reach to an irresistible conclusion that the appeal has been filed

after inordinate delay and mainly because there was no

(5 of 5) [SAW-869/2018]

promptitude in dealing with the matter in the course of official

business. It is for the State to streamline the process in such

matters. However, so far as this case is concerned, in view of the

aforesaid decisions, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

The argument that the impugned order is bad in law,

would not arise for consideration because we find that the appeal

itself is barred by inordinate delay and the delay is not properly

explained. We leave the issue raised in the appeal to be decided

in appropriate case without commenting upon the merits of the

case.