Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 733 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Kailashchandra

2014-06-26

MOOL CHAND GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2014
Judgment: 1. Heard on IA No. 7100/2008, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The delay is of 565 days. 3. We find that following is the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay: - 2. It is most respectfully submitted that the Officer-in-Charge of the case after the decision dated 18.10.2006 of the aforesaid writ petition No. 2023/2000, applied for the certified copy of the order. 3. It is respectfully submitted that after receiving the certified copy, an opinion of the Government Advocate was sought in the matter on 03.01.2007. The opinion of the Government Advocate for preferring Writ Appeal is received vide letter dated 14.03.2007. The Officer-in-Charge of the case after receiving the said opinion forwarded the same to the Higher Authorities at Bhopal for seeking necessary sanction to file the Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 4. Ultimately the permission is granted by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, which is received by the Secretariat of Revenue Department MP, Bhopal. Thereafter, the same was informed to the concerned authorities and thereafter the Officer-in-Charge of the case is appointed and after the appointment of the Officer-in-Charge in the matter, the Officer-in-Charge of the case after collecting the relevant record, contacted the Office of the Advocate General at Indore for preferring the appeal. It is most respectfully submitted that the delay of 559 days caused in filing the present writ appeal, being bona fide on the part of the appellants, deserve to be condoned, in the interest of justice. 4. Having gone through the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case for condonation of delay is made out. 5. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 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, 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 v. Amar Nath Yadav [ (2014) 2 SCC 422 ]. 7. Consequently, IA No. 7100/2008 is rejected. 8. As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.