Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1046 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Daulatram Barod

2014-08-21

MOOL CHAND GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on IA No. 10302 of 2006, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The delay is of 372 days. 3. We find that the following is the explanation offered in the application seeking condonation of delay:- "1. That the appellants have filed Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 23.09.2005 passed in WP No. 4759 of 2003 (OA No. 938 of 1995) by Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner has been allowed. It is most humbly submitted that the Writ Appeal is being filed beyond the 418 days of limitation for which explanation is being given as under. 2. That after receiving the copy of the order dated 23.09.2006, the Officer in charge of the case processed the matter and record of the case was collected as the respondents were appointees of the years 1967 and 1964 and respondent no. 1 was already retired in the year 2004. Thereafter the Officer in charge of the case sent the copy to the higher authorities, and it was directed by the Higher Authorities to obtain opinion from the Government. Opinion from the Government was obtained on 30.10.2006. Thereafter vide memo dated 04.11.2006 the Law Department granted permission to file LPA/WA, which was received by the Officer in charge of the case vide letter dated 07.11.2006. Thereafter matter was scrutinized and record of the case and other connected cases was also collected and perused. After scrutinizing the material available with the Department, while preparation of the Writ Appeal it came to know by the appellants that the respondent no. 1 has already been retired, therefore, information regarding the said respondent was also collected, in which delay was also caused, therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to official procedure and legal formalities and same is bona fide and deserves to condoned, in the interest of justice. 3. It is most humbly submitted that the delay of 418 day has been cause due to official formalities and procedure and same is bona fide and deserves to be condoned and there is no willful and deliberate delay in filing this writ appeal." 4. On going through the aforesaid averments, it is clear that very casual approach has been made by the appellant/State in seeking condonation of delay. On going through the aforesaid averments, it is clear that very casual approach has been made by the appellant/State in seeking condonation of delay. The explanation offered cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation. 5. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited, AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual-manner in which the Government departments are functioning-showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation: "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. 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 bona fide 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." 6. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amar Nath Yadav, (2014) 2 SCC 422 . 7. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 6. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amar Nath Yadav, (2014) 2 SCC 422 . 7. In the circumstances, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation seeking condonation of such a huge delay, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out. 8. Consequently, application (IA No. 10302 of 2006) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.