State of M.P. vs Murari Lal

M.C. Garg, J.—Heard on I.A.No.12472 of 2009 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the appellants for condoning the delay of 1865 days.

The application has been opposed by the respondent. In support of the application, the appellants have also filed an application to bring on record some other facts being I.A.No.1763 of 2010.

I have gone through the application to bring on record the additional facts. The additional facts as disclosed by the appellants are as under :

"(I). That, learned lower appellate court passed impugned judgment and decree on 29.3.2004 and application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was submitted and after receiving certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, legal opinion was sought from the concerned Govt. Advocate on 25.6.2005. Copy of the legal opinion given by the concerning Govt. Advocate is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/1. After receiving legal opinion from the concerning Govt. Advocate, Collector District Guna wrote a letter on 26.8.2005 to the secretary of the Revenue Department regarding filing of second appeal before this Hon. Court. Copy of the letter dated 26.8.2005 wrote by Collector, District Guna to the Secretary, of Revenue Deptt. State of M.P. Is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/2. Thereafter, on 12.12.2005, another reminder was sent by the District Collector Guna to the Secretary of the Revenue Department State of M.P. With regard to obtaining permission from law department for filing second appeal. Copy of the subsequent reminder dated 12.12.2005 is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/3. Later on, the matter was referred by the Secretary, Revenue Department to the Law Department for granting permission to file appeal before Hon. High Court. Law department for granting permission to file appeal before Hon. High Court. Law department thereafter on its turn granted permission on 31.3.2009 for filing second appeal before the Hon. High Court. Copy of the permission granted by Law Department of the State Government on 31.3.2009 is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/4.

(ii). That, thereafter, Collector, district Guna appointed OIC on 8.4.2009. Copy of the appointment of OIC on 8.4.2009 is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/5. But as there were parliamentary elections being held in the State in the month of April, 2009, therefore, OIC of the case was busy in election work and after election, there was summer vacation of the Hon. High Court and after summer vacation, OIC of the case was again busy in some administrative work. Apart from that, certified copy of the impugned order passed by Hon. Lower appellate Court was sent to Bhopal and the same was misplaced at Bhopal. Therefore, another application was submitted before learned lower appellate court for getting certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree and therefore, after receiving certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon. High Court, OIC contacted office of AAG on 30.7.2009 and thereafter, the appeal was drafted and filed on . Thus, the appeal is barred by 1865 days".

(iii). That, in the identical case, and situation, this Hon. Court has condoned the delay caused in the filing second appeal by the State Government bearing SA No. 166 of 2007 vide order dated 17.9.2008. Copy of the order dated 17.9.2008 is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure C/6".

The manner in which, the appellants have dealt with the matter speaks volume and shows utter negligence on the part of the appellants to consider the issue of condonation.

The counsel for the appellants without telling as to what question of law is involved in this matter, has prayed that the delay of even 1954 days could be condoned if the appeal raises question of law relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu by Ins. of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and Others, .

The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the property in question claiming ownership on the basis of patta. The said suit was dismissed on the plea of the respondent that the patta was cancelled by the competent authority. However, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondents by holding that despite the allegation of the applicant about cancellation of patta, the revenue entries show that the land was still in the name of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that merely because there were entries, it will not prove his possession.

Even if this argument is of any value, the factum of keeping the matter pending for more than three years and doing nothing to assail the judgment of the first appellate court, shows that the appellants are utterly careless and in this case, no question of law is involved which requires any condonation of delay as pleaded.

A Division Bench of this Court in The State of M.P. Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma passed in Writ Appeal No. 509 of 2014 has held as under :

"The law with respect to the consideration of sufficient cause is well settled in the latest judgment delivered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under: -

(11) 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 LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, 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.

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

(14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

Hence, I find no good reason to condone the delay in this case. Hence, I.A.No. 12472 of 2009 and 1763 of 2010 are dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed.