Secretary State of M.P. vs Bansilal

Heard on IA No. 2272/2013, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

The delay is of 394 days.

We find that the following is the explanation offered in the application seeking condonation of delay:-

That the appellants have filed Writ Appeal before this Hon''ble Court against the order dated 24.11.2011 passed in WP No. 2418/2009 (s) (Annexure A/1) by Hon''ble Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed.

It is most humbly submitted that the Writ Appeal is being filed beyond the 439 days of limitation for which explanation is being given as under.

That the order was passed on 24.11.2011. Copy of the order was received on 01.03.2012. Thereafter a letter dated 06.03.2012 was sent to the Government Advocate for opinion which was given vide letter dated 06.03.2012 for filing Writ Appeal. The said opinion was sent to the Superintending Engineering, WRD, Indore on 28.03.2012. Thereafter vide letter dated 03.04.2012 the same was sent tot he Engineer-in-Chief. Thereafter the Principal Secretary, WRD sent a letter dated 09.10.2012 to the Law Department for permission. The Law Department granted permission vide memo dated 25.10.2012, which was received by the OIC vide letter dated 04.02.2013. After receiving the permission of the Law Department the Officer in Charge collected the record of the case and contacted the Office of Advocate General, at Indore where the record of the case was perused and appeal was drafted and same has been filed without any further delay.

It is most humbly submitted that the delay of 439 day has been caused due to official formalities and procedure and same is bona fide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and there is no willful and deliberate delay in filing this Writ Appeal.

On going through the aforesaid averments, it is clear that very casual approach has been made by the appellant/State in seeking condonation of delay. The explanation offered cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual-manner in which the Government departments are functioning-showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:

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.

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 bona fide 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.

The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer and Another Vs. Amar Nath Yadav,

In the circumstances, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation seeking condonation of such a huge delay, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out.

Consequently, application (IA No. 2272/2013) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.