Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Dev Ganga Enterprises on 14 February, 2022

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 493/2019

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus M/s Dev Ganga Enterprises

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

14/02/2022

Though the case is listed for order we find that there is long

and unexplained delay of 318 days in filing the appeal. In order to

explain delay, all that has been stated in the application is as

below "2. The the obtaining the copy of the order dated 16.02.2018 legal opinion of the Government Counsel was given, which accordingly was forwarded to higher authorities.

3. That the matter was then considered by the Committee and it was decided to file appeal in the order dated 16.02.2018.

4. That after grant of sanction the officer in- charge was appointed in the matter.

5. That the officer-in-charge after receiving the information contacted the office of Additional Advocate General for drafting the special appeal on 06.10.2018 and on that day some information was sought by the office of Additional Advocate General, which immediately was supplied.

6. That thereafter the office of the Additional Advocate General drafted the special appeal with no further delay.

7. That delay in filing the special appeal is unintentional and bona-fide and an important question of law is involved in the case which has a far reaching effect and therefore in interest of justice, this application of condonation of delay may be allowed."

(2 of 4) [SAW-493/2019]

In two recent judicial pronouncement Hon'ble Supreme Court

has deprecated the practice of the delay on the part of the state

authority in filing appeal after long delay as a result of indifference

and indolent attitude on the part of the state authorities in dealing

with files in their offices.

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:

"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

(3 of 4) [SAW-493/2019]

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 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 officerin- charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019.

(4 of 4) [SAW-493/2019]

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."

The cause shown in the application, if we may say so is

bereft of any sufficient cause for such a long delay. Only on the

ground of delay this appeal is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly dismissed.