Rajasthan High Court

State Of Rajasthan vs Liyakat Ali S/O Sh. Ansar Ali ... on 11 October, 2023

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2023:RJ-JP:28551-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1695/2019

                                           In

                S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2434/2001

1.       State of Rajasthan, through Dy. Inspector General of
         Police, Kota Range, Kota.
2.       The Superintendent of Police, Kota Range, Kota.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Liyakat Ali S/o Sh. Ansar Ali, Bajrang Nagar, Kota.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellants : Ms. Kinjal Surana Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Maharshi Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

11/10/2023

1. Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963.

2. Appeal is barred by 300 days. The cause shown to seek

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, as stated in para no. 2

of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is

as below:

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 13.11.2018 and after obtaining the certified copy of the order and legal opinion from the Additional Government Counsel Arjun Singh Khangarot on 27.11.2018, the matter was proceeded on various levels and due to administrative reasons and due to the time consumed in seeking opinion from various levels, final decision has been

[2023:RJ-JP:28551-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1695/2019]

taken by the department for filing the special appeal on 12-09-2019 and thereafter officer in charge of the case has been appointed by the Appellant No. 1 vide order dated 14.11.18 which was received on 27.11.18 by the officer in charge of the case. The officer in charge of the case has contacted in the office of Additional Government Counsel, Jaipur for drafting/preparation of the appeal on 25.9.19, thereafter the appeal has been drafted/prepared and same is being filed today."

3. The averments made in the application, as stated above,

hardly constitute sufficient cause. In only indicates snail pace at

the official level.

4. 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

[2023:RJ-JP:28551-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1695/2019]

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!"

5. 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:-

[2023:RJ-JP:28551-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1695/2019]

"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."

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo

Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. & Others Vs. Union of

India (UOI) & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5867 of 2015

decided on 09.10.2023.

7. That was an appeal filed by legal representatives of the

deceased. Present is a case where the State, with all means in its

[2023:RJ-JP:28551-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1695/2019]

hand, has failed to come out with any plausible explanation for

long delay.

8. There are no extraordinary circumstances appearing in the

case that this Court should be inclined to condone the delay.