DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs I.S.NARULA

THIS order would dispose of application for condonation of delay. The material dates are; the District Forum-II rendered its order on 4.5.94. Certified copy of the order was received by the DDA, appellant, by post on 13.7.94, The appeal was filed on 28.9.94 alongwith application for condonation of delay. Better particulars in regard to this application were furnished later. Reply to the application has been filed. According to the appellant decision to file the appeal was taken on 9.8.94 and the file was sent to the Lawyer to do the needful on 12.8.94. There were public holidays from 13 to 15th August ''94. The appellant furnished better particular with regard to the delay from 16,8.94 to 27.9.94. In the better particulars it was stated that there was strike in Tis Hazari Courts and the appellant''s Counsel could not get the grounds of appeal typed whereafter grounds of appeals were sent and the same were signed by the Competent Authority and ultimately the appeal was filed.

IN the reply it has been vehemently stated that there was no strike in Tis Hazari Courts for the period alleged in the application The contention of Mr. S.C. Varshney is that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been made out. In case delay was not condoned, no particular individual would suffer but the public interest in general would be adversely affected. He further submitted that decisions taken in the Government department were proverbially slow and a certain amount of latitude deserves to be given. He placed reliance on Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 897 and a recent decision of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Union of India v. R.P. Builders, 1994 Rajdhani Law Reporter 460 (DB).

Mr. Arun Batta, learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the explanation for the delay furnished in the form of better particulars was false inasmuch as there was no strike in Tis Hazari Courts during the period alleged in the application. He, therefore, urged that the application for condonation of delay should be dismissed for want of bona fide and necessary action taken against the officer who had filed a false affidavit. He further contended that apart from the period of strike, there were several long stretches which could not be explained at all. According to Mr. Batta the appellant had failed to explain each and every day''s delay and the application deserved to be dismissed.

WE have carefully considered the respective contentions. The learned Chief Judges speaking for the Bench in Union of India v. R.P. Builders (supra) reviewed the case law particularly where one of the parties was Government or a Government department. As a result of the review the following propositions were formulated:- "9. The above decisions of the Supreme Court clearly lay down that while the State cannot be treated differently from any other litigant, the Court is "bound" to take into consideration the following factors - (i) red-tapism in Government; (ii) delays in correspondence; (iii) habitual indifference of Govt. Officials or Govt. Pleaders as distinct from the usual diligence of ordinary litigants or Lawyers for private parties; (iv) collusion or negligence by Govt. Officials or Govt. Pleaders or fraud; (v) damage to public interest or to public funds or interests of the State; (vi) institutional or bureaucratic procedures as well as delays arising thereon, and (vii) need to render substantial justice on merits. It is not as if, fraud on the part of the Government Officials or Pleaders has necessarily to be proved by the Government in every case."

The requirement that each and every day''s delay must be explained no longer holds the field in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in Katiji''s case (supra). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the settled position of the law that the power of condonation of delay should be liberally exercised, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out. We accordingly condone the delay. Now to come up for further proceedings in the appeal on 28.2.96. Delay condoned.