State of M.P. vs Kamlesh Kumar

M.C. Garg, J.—The appellants have not filed an additional affidavit despite grant of further time.

This Court has gone through the I.A. No. 14994/2006 filed by the appellants u/S 5 of the Limitation Act. The application reads as under:

"2. That, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 11.08.2004. This fact was informed by the Additional Public Prosecutor to the Collector in the month of March, 2006 alongwith the certified copy of the judgment and decree. Thereafter, the Nazal Tehsildar wrote a letter to J.P. Sharma, Govt Advocate to file an appeal. Opinion of Government pleaders was obtained on 02.04.2005 and 16.06.2005 in which it is the say of the pleader that there are no chances to success in the same. Thereafter, Collector wrote a letter to the Secretary of Revenue Department for filing the appeal on 18.07.2005, with specific averments that the land is a valuable land and the appeal should be filed. The Law and Legislative Department of the State Government granted permission vide letter dated 25.10.2005. The Collector appointed OIC in the matter. It is pertinent to note that the OIC collected the record of the case and thereafter contacted in the office of Advocate General on 24.08.2006. The appeal was prepared and thereafter the appeal was duly filed. However, there is a delay of 90 days, which is not deliberate, as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the delay deserves to be condoned."

Despite there being delay of more than two years, the appellant mentioned only delay of 90 days. Not only that, in the aforesaid para they also quoted about the opinion given by the Government Pleader obtained on 02.04.2005, wherein, it was clearly opined that there is no chance of success, if the appeal was filed. Yet the Collector wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Revenue Department on 18.07.2005 for filing of the appeal, as if the Collector was going to put some new material for the success of the appeal. Even if, that was so, the appeal ought to have been filed within the time, but they took two years to file the same. This shows utter negligence on the part of the State.

Learned counsel for appellants also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 217.

However, perusal of this judgment shows that the delay is to be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown. The appellants have not shown any sufficient cause, rather the reasons given are hypothetical and presumptive, as if the Collector will put new arguments to bring some new splash in the appeal. This is a high ended mistake on the part of appellants that instead of submitting that there was any genuine delay or there were some strong reasons for condoning the delay, they want to say as if Collector is more important than the Government Pleader, who has opined that there was no case for filing of this appeal.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, has held that unless reasonable and acceptable explanation of delay and sufficient cause is shown, the application need not be accepted. Relevant para is quoted below : -

"(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. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay".

In the case of Post Master General, Apex Court has taken note of the conduct of the State Government in number of cases where there is a delay which is unexplainable and has not agreed with the statements made by the learned counsel for the appellant merely because an application has been filed by the State, delay should be condoned.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant seeks more time to file an additional affidavit.

The Government has not filed an additional affidavit, despite time was granted to them vide order dated 06.08.2014. Even otherwise, looking to the reasons given in the application, in case an additional affidavit has been filed, it will serve no purpose, rather further delay the disposal of the case and therefore the prayer for grant of time is declined.

The application filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.