Gauhati High Court Employees'' Association vs Shyamal Saikia and Others

V.D. Gyani, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1447 of 1991. It was filed on 13.8.97 apparently barred by 218 days on Appellant''s own showing, but as per report dated 18.8.97 submitted by the Stamp Reporter, it was barred by only 61 days and the reason for this obvious . discrepancies in number of days by which it is time barred is not far to see. The Appellant is the Association of the Employees of the High Court. An application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed and a show cause notice vide order dated 20.8.97 was directed to be issued, accordingly the Respondents have entered appearance.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay in filing this appeal.

We would like to make it clear at the very out set justice oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, should ordinarily be adopted by the Courts. But a mere glance of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order as filed by the Appellant and the entries made in the respective columns thereof, put us on guards. Copy was applied for on 22.1.97 and the date fixed for notifying the requisite number of stamps and folios was 17.7.97 almost 7 months thereafter, it was on the same day i.e. 17.7.97 that the stamps and folios as required was supplied, the same day, the copy was ready and delivered to the applicant. This gap of 7 months (short of 5 days) was itself something which made us suspicious, we sent for original records from the Copying Section and what was revealed is simple shocking. Sufficient cause for condonation of delay as contemplated by Section 5 is not something to be concocted. The original record clearly shows that a crude interpolation has been made in the entries, the serial number if superimposed and super added by adding the Capital letter "A" to 880 in their zest to help the Association. Those entrusted with the task of issuing certified copies have by their own mis-deed defeated the cause of justice. Howsoever, liberally construed the question of condonation of delay is not to be so extended as to cover up an apparent tampering of record by none else than those who are supposed to guard and maintain the sanctity of the Court record. A mere glance at Entry 880(A) dated 22.1.97 in Copy Petition Register commencing with effect from 17.12.96 to 11.2.97 would reveal that the entries No. 880(A) is a crude patch with all that made on 27.1.97. The difference in overlapping, spacing clearly indicates that the entries had been subsequently made. The Clerk concern who produced the Register on being specifically asked to point out if there is any such interpolated entry in the whole of the Register produced before us, after having gone through the Register stated that there is no such inserted entry as 880(A). The reason behind this gratuitous insertion of Entry 880(A) dated 22.1.97 is not far to seek. The applicant being the Secretary of the High Court Employees'' Association, it is upto these employees to see that the records are kept in tact and are not tampered with.

Taking a liberal justice oriented approach in the matter of condoning delay does not extend to such an extent as to condoning even with the tampering of record although it was pointed out by Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Petitioners in its application for condonation of delay has clearly stated that the appeal was barred by 218 days. The sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is contained in paragraph 3 of the application is reproduced below:

That although the judgment was delivered on 17.12.96, same was not even to the knowledge of the members of the Petitioner Association. Same was also not intimated to them by the leaned Advocate who had appeared for them. It was only on 22.1.97, some of the members of the Association could come to know about the said judgment dated 17.12.96.

It does not stand to reason that the judgment was not known to the Association for such a long time. They are very much part and parcel of the whole ministerial machinery of the High Court. The Advocate with whom fault is found is not even named, much less, affidavit filed in support of the cause. The verification appended to the affidavit is equally faulty. It is also reproduced below:

That the statements made in this affidavit and in the accompanying petition in paragraphs 1 to 8 are true to my knowledge ; those made in paragraphs - being matters of records are true to my information derived therefrom and the rest are my humble submissions before this Hon''ble Court.

Of course, as propounded by the Apex Court, a pragmatic, justice oriented approach should be adopted but in not such a case where the record is sought to be tampered with, in a blatant manner by those who enjoy a position of trust so far as maintenance of Court''s record is concerned. Condoning delay in such a case would tantamount to condoning the misdeed of tampering with the Court record.

The application for condonation of delay is therefore liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as bared by time. The matter does not rest here, the Registry is directed to hold an enquiry into the conduct of those erring members of the staff who are involved in the tampering of record.