State Of Rajasthan vs Prakash Chand Gupta S/O Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 301 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 198/2021

                                           In

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12972/2018

1.      State     of     Rajasthan,          Through         Principle   Secretary,
        Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department, Govt.
        of Secretariat Jaipur.
2.      Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur.
3.      The     Block      Development            Officer,      Panchayat    Samiti,
        Kotputli, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
4.      The     Director,         Pension         And       Pensioners      Welfare,
        Government of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Prakash Chand Gupta S/o Shri Durgalal Gupta, Aged About 67
Years, R/o Mohalla Badawas, Ward No. 22, Village And Post
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, Additional Advocate General

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment / Order

13/01/2022

This appeal is barred by 476 days.

In the application for condonation of delay, in order to

explain long delay of 476 days, all that has been stated in the

application is as below:-

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, after taking legal opinion from the counsel it was placed for decision in the meeting of the department head on 19.2.2020 wherein decision for filing

(2 of 5) [SAW-198/2021]

Special Appeal was taken. The decision of the meeting was circulated vide order No.4371 dated 24.2.2020. Thereafter the matter was forwarded to the Additional Advocate General for preparing special appeal vide Letter No.1852 dated 17.3.2020. Subsequently, due to worldwide pandemic Covid-19 lock down was imposed throughout Country/State including the Department of the appellants. Upon resumption of function/works the Special Appeal was prepared and after getting the same wet from concern authorities and the same has been filed before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.

3. That the delay caused in filing of the special appeal is not coupled with any malafide or deliberate intention rather it is due to aforesaid bonafide reason, as such it deserves to the condoned in the interest of justice since the appellants has a strong case on merits."

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two recent judicial

pronouncements have deprecated this practice on the part of the

State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after

inordinate delay coming-forth with the only excuse of matter

having remained pending in the Office from one table to the other.

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.

(3 of 5) [SAW-198/2021]

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 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!"

(4 of 5) [SAW-198/2021]

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 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."

(5 of 5) [SAW-198/2021]

Taking into consideration the cause shown in the present

application and in the light of the observations made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in two cases, we find ourselves unable to

condone the delay in the absence of sufficient cause.

Accordingly, Application No. 104/2021 for condonation of delay is

therefore dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as

barred by limitation.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /81

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)