Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 833 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. Makhan Singh

2010-02-08

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1 This appeal is filed with a delay of 422 days. The reasons given to seek condonation of the delay are that the same is not intentional or willful and has taken place because of the procedure involved. 2 While explaining the delay, it is stated that the copy of the judgment was prepared on 4.9.2008 and was delivered on 13.9.2008. The same was sent to the Ministry of Law for instructions and comments. The Ministry of Law returned the same with a note on 3.11.2008. This was sent through letter dated 21.1.2009. The case was then dealt with in consultation with the Department arid proposal was submitted for seeking approval of the competent authority on 16.2.2009. The file was returned with certain queries on 19.2.2009, Clarification was issued on 12.3.2009. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs again returned the file on 23.4.2009, which was again resubmitted on 18.5.2009. The case was again submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 30.7.2009. For strange reason, it was again referred to Ministry of Law on 11.9.2009. It is stated that the Ministry of Law reviewed and superseded earlier opinion dated 3.11.2009 and then the sanction was given to file the appeal. It appears that earlier the case was not. found fit for appeal. 3 The case was then handed over to the Central Government counsel on 10.11.2009. The Central Government counsel had then made certain queries in regard to judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. K.V. Jankiraman and others (1991)4 Supreme Court Cases 109. Some original documents were statedly asked for to understand the factual aspects. The record was accordingly received from Kohima and the present Regular Second Appeal was prepared on 19.1.2010, It is accordingly stated that the delay in filing this appeal has, thus, taken place. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to number of judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court to say that considerable delay of procedural red tape in decision taking process of the Government, would call for certain amount of latitude. Reference is made to some other judgments in support to seek condonation of delay. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to number of judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court to say that considerable delay of procedural red tape in decision taking process of the Government, would call for certain amount of latitude. Reference is made to some other judgments in support to seek condonation of delay. 5 Reference here can be made to the judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 1623 and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V.Ayisumma, A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 2750, 6 It is observed in the case of Chander Mani (supra) that Government is a impersonal machinery and decisions are taken at a slow pace on account of which certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. It is also observed that it is a common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing and passingon- the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. Observing that the State represent a collective cause of the community and the decision which are taken by officers/agencies at a slow pace containing a process of pushing the files from table to table and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is due in such cases is a routine. In this background, it is observed that expression "sufficient cause" should therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. 7 Another relevant observation which was made by the Court is that the Court should decide the matter on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. Having so observed, the Honble Supreme Court has held that there is no separate standard to determine the cause made by the State vis-a-vis private litigant to prove strict standard of sufficient cause. In Special Tehsildar Land Case (supra), there was a delay in filing the application for review, where it was observed that during the transaction of business of Government being done leisurely by the officer who has no or evince no personal interest at different levels, insistence upon explaining every days delay by Court would be improper. In Special Tehsildar Land Case (supra), there was a delay in filing the application for review, where it was observed that during the transaction of business of Government being done leisurely by the officer who has no or evince no personal interest at different levels, insistence upon explaining every days delay by Court would be improper. 8 No doubt, that some latitude would not be impermissible in the cases of Government but these observations primarily appear to have been made when the litigation by the Government is to look for the larger interest of public. Though the latitude may be given but it is not that in each case, this approach is to be adopted and the deiay without any explanation is required to be accepted for the purpose of condonation. The reasons which are advanced in the application to seek condonation of delay of nearly one and a half year are not sufficient. The Government organisation may not be required to explain each days delay but there must be an explanation offered to justify the delay to indicate the sufficient cause which led to the delay it may need a notice that no separate standards are otherwise to be considered for the State vis-a-vis the private litigant to prove the strict standard of sufficient cause. 9 The reasons for which there is a delay in filing the present appeal have been noted above in detail. Without any justification, the file has gone from one Ministry to another without any purpose. The reference to the case of K. V.Jankiraman (supra) appears to be made out of context. This case did not pertain to anything concerning the recording of annual confidential report of an individual employee. This case basically related to the sealed cover procedure required to be followed during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The respondent has not raised any issue regarding disciplinary proceedings but had only impugned the remarks endorsed in his annual confidential report, part of which itself had been expunged by the appellants. In this background, the justification to explain this deiay is not made out. The appellants are required to show a sufficient cause and the reasons which are explained would not reveal any sufficient cause to explain this inordinate delay of nearly a year and half in filing this appeal. In this background, the justification to explain this deiay is not made out. The appellants are required to show a sufficient cause and the reasons which are explained would not reveal any sufficient cause to explain this inordinate delay of nearly a year and half in filing this appeal. There is, thus, unexplained inordinate delay, for which there is no justification to condone the same as per the reasons recorded in the application. The ratio of law laid down in the judgments referred in the applications are not attracted in the facts of the case. 10 Another ground for not condoning the delay is that there is really no substantial question of law involved in the present Regular Second Appeal. The case of K. V.Jankiraman (supra), which was advanced as the main basis for approaching the Court with a delay is found not applicable to the facts of this case, it could not be disputed that the part of the adverse remarks in the annual confidential report were expunged by the Department itself on 6.5.1997 and as such, this report was also found to be very good. In this background and in view of the change in the profile, because of expunging of the adverse remarks, the respondent was entitled to be reconsidered for promotion, with the changed profile. The view taken by the Court does not suffer from any illegality. 11 The appeal is, thus, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Appeal dismissed.