The New Nindia Assurance Company ... vs Erukala Lalitha And 9 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 93 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

IA.No.1 of 2020 in/and

MACMA.No.424 of 2020

JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

The application I.A.No.1 of 2020 is filed to condone the

delay of 292 days in preferring this appeal challenging the

judgment and decree dt08.02.2019 in MVOP.No.54 of 2018

passed by the Chairman(MACT)-cum-II Additional District

Judge(FTC), Mancherial.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is

stated by the representative of the appellant that the

impugned judgment was pronounced on 08.02.2019, that

copy of the application was made on 27.02.2019, that stamps

were called on 12.03.2019 and were deposited on 18.03.2019,

and that the judgment was made ready on 18.03.2019 to the

appellant.

3. However, the appeal has been filed on 11.09.2020 by

the appellant, long after the copy of the judgment was made

available to it.

4. In the affidavit it is further contended that approval to

file the appeal was granted in August, 2019.

::2::

5. If so, the appellant should explain why it took time till

September, 2020, almost one year thereafter to file the

appeal. Even the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- was made

on 04.03.2020, long after the approval to file the appeal was

granted.

6. Reliance is sought to be placed by the appellant on the

lockdown imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic

situation, but we are of the opinion that the lockdown

commenced on 24.03.2020, long after the judgment was

pronounced on 08.02.2019 and its copy was made ready to

the appellant on 18.03.2019 and approval to file the appeal

was granted to the appellant in August, 2019.

7. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there has been

negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal.

8. The Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others

v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.1 reviewed the entire case

law relating to the aspect of condonation of delay when

sought by the State or its instrumentalities and observed that

in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, delay

cannot be condoned mechanically, merely because the

Government or a wing of the Government is a party before the

Court. It had deprecated the practice of the State and State

undertakings leisurely approaching the Appellate Forums as

if there has been a special period of limitation provided for

2012(3) SCC 563 ::3::

them to challenge the orders of trial Courts or the Tribunals.

It observed that:

"26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

27. 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.

::4::

28. 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.

29. 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 red-tape 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.

30. 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 ::5::

failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."

9. Having regard to the said legal position, we are of the

opinion that no sufficient cause has been shown by the

appellant for condonation of the inordinate period of delay of

292 days in filing the appeal.

10. Accordingly, the application IA.No.1 of 2020 is

dismissed and consequently, the MACMA is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

______________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

_____________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 19.01.2021 gra