State Of Jharkhand vs Azadul Haque

M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)

I.A. No. 9029 of 2024

This application is filed to condone delay of 221 days in filing the appeal challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2733 of 2023.

In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal has been caused on account of certain procedural formalities and there was no willful omission on the part of the applicants. It is stated that from 27.10.2023 till 22.01.2024, election related Special Summary Revision 2024 was under process and officers were required to attend and cater to the same and the works were being performed intermittently. It is also stated that from 24.11.2023 to 26.12.2023 - Sarkar Aapke Dwaar (Panchayat and District Level Camps) were also under process and the officers were required to attend and cater to the same. It is next stated that during the very same period, the District Sub-Registrar informed the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (appellant no.4 herein) about the order of the learned Single Judge and sought for directions and the file was then put up before the concerned official and processed at different levels, and on 15.01.2024 opinion with draft grounds of appeal was sought. It is stated that on 02.02.2024, Law Officer desired for further records and details for giving opinion, and after further processing at different levels approval for filing the appeal was given and the appeal came to be filed on 16.07.2024.

It may be that some of the applicants were involved in the Special Summary Revision 2024 related to the election and also in the programme of Sarkar Aapke Dwaar, but that is no excuse for not taking a decision at an appropriate level whether or not to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The applicants cannot state that several people were involved at the decision making level with regard to the decision to file the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge particularly, when the said order is of hardly three pages, and a decision with regard to filing of the appeal could have been taken at a higher level instead of each of the applicants applying their mind and taking a call on the issue.

In our opinion, the applicants have adopted a very lethargic attitude in the matter of filing the Letters Patent Appeal and have been negligent in that regard.

In “Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

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.

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.

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 bona fides, 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.”

These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicant has acted in a similar manner as in the said case.

The said judgement has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as “Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.” reported in (2022) 3 SCC 159, “Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.” reported in (2022) 2 SCC 327, “Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others” reported in (2021) 11 SCC 557, “Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another” reported in (2022) 9 SCC 263, and “State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others” reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266.

We are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants for condoning the said period of delay in filing the appeal.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the L.P.A. is also dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.