State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Bherulal

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J

IA No.62372/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING

The Special Leave Petition has been filed with a delay of 663 days! The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay is set out in

paragraphs 3 and 4.

We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on

deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation

prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution

may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence.

That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.

No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements

for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &

Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master

General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

“12) 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

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.

13) 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. 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 failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.â€​

Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!

A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only “due to unavailability of the

documents and the process of arranging the documentsâ€. In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to “bureaucratic process works, it is

inadvertent that delay occursâ€​.

A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is

good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the

jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate casesâ€. The object

appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because

the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is

followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of

coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the

same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is

presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring

even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.

We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or

State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers

responsible.

Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the

petitioner-State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be

deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of

recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.

The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.

We make it clear that if the aforesaid order is not complied within time, we will be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief

Secretary.

A copy of the order be placed before the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh.