R.S.I.D.And I.C.Ltd vs M/S Sohan Lal Pungalia And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4807 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Restoration No. 27/2014

Rajasthan State Industrial Developoment and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO), through Assistant Regional Manager, Regional Office, New Udhyog Bhawan, Industrial Estate, New Power House Road, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. M/s Sohan Lal Pungalia "Registered Firm" Near Aakaswani, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Jaisalmer.

2. Shri Nandlal Chhangani (Retired RHJS) "Sole Arbitrator" Shri Chhangani Building, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit Ms. Twinkle Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. PD Bohra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/2022

The present restoration application has been preferred by the

applicant-Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment

Corporation Ltd. after delay of 662 days. Alongwith the

restoration application, the applicant has also preferred an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation

of delay.

All what has been stated in the application for condonation of

delay is that the applicant was not aware of the peremptory order

dated 13.5.2011 and consequential dismissal order of the appeal

dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.). In the

(2 of 5) [CRES-27/2014]

application it is further stated that the applicant applied for the

certified copy on 6.3.2013, which was delivered on 19.3.2013,

whereas the present restoration application has been preferred by

the applicant on 1.5.2013.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant reiterating the

submissions made in the application prayed that the delay in filing

restoration application may be condoned and consequently, while

allowing the restoration application, the civil misc. appeal

no.4571/2011 may be restored to its original number.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently

opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant

and submits that there is unexplained delay of 662 days.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record, this Court is not inclined to condone the long

and unexplained delay of 662 days in filing the restoration

application because in two recent judicial pronouncement Hon'ble

Supreme Court has depricated 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

(3 of 5) [CRES-27/2014]

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 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

(4 of 5) [CRES-27/2014]

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. 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 :

(5 of 5) [CRES-27/2014]

"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 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is

therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the restoration application is

also dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)