Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2517 (HP)

Union of India v. Vivek Bhardwaj

2016-11-30

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. 2. Main appeal, which has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, is barred by 256 days. The explanation as set out in the application is bureaucratic style of functioning in the Government Offices as the matter allegedly remained pending for consideration before various authorities in the Department of Defence, Government of India for seeking approval. The District Attorney, Una has advised the applicant-appellant vide communication dated 10.2.2014 to seek opinion of the Law Department for filing of appeal in this Court against the impugned judgment and decree. The approval was finally received in the first week of May, 2014. The matter thereafter was processed in the office of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the memorandum of appeal drafted in the month of May itself. The same after obtaining the signature of the competent authority was sent to the office of learned Assistant General of India on 23rd May, 2014 for filing the appeal in this Court. The appeal along with this application, however, was filed on 19.1.2015 i.e. after about seven months. It is in this backdrop while hearing this application for sometime on 13.7.2016, the applicant, Union of India, was directed to file supplementary affidavit clarifying therein as to where the matter remained held up during the period 23.5.2014 to 18.1.2015. This order reads as follows:- “Heard for sometime. Interestingly enough the memorandum of appeal, in view of the averments in the application, was delivered in the office of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on 23rd May, 2014 for being filed in the Registry of this Court. The same, however, has been filed on 19.1.2015 after a period over seven months. No explanation is forth coming as to why the memorandum of appeal, which was ready for being presented in this Court on 23.5.2014, has been filed on 19.1.2015. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to clarify the position in this regard in the rejoinder, which shall be filed within three weeks. List on 10th August, 2016.” 3. Irrespective of 4-5 opportunities granted for the purpose, supplementary affidavit has not been filed. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to clarify the position in this regard in the rejoinder, which shall be filed within three weeks. List on 10th August, 2016.” 3. Irrespective of 4-5 opportunities granted for the purpose, supplementary affidavit has not been filed. On the previous date, last and final opportunity was granted to the applicant-appellant to file the same with a rider that in case the affidavit is not filed even within the extended period also, the application shall be disposed of finally. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on instructions, submits that despite efforts made, no one has turned up to file the supplementary affidavit as directed by this Court. 5. It is seen that the memorandum of appeal returned by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India in the month of May, 2014 for signature on this application and also attestation of affidavit etc., was returned by the applicant-appellant in the month of January 2015. The affidavit filed in support of this application was got attested on 16.1.2015 at Delhi. The memorandum of appeal and this application, no doubt, was thereafter delivered in the office of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and thereafter, it has been filed on 19.1.2015 in the Registry of this Court i.e. within 2-3 days, however, the fact remains that there is no explanation qua the delay as occurred in filing the appeal from 23.5.2014 to 18.1.2015. The applicant-appellant could have explained the same in the supplementary affidavit, however, failed to do so, irrespective of more than sufficient time granted for the purpose. True it is that in the case where the State Government or Central Government is a party, in the matter of condonation of delay, in view of the bureaucratic style of functioning, a pragmatic approach of the matter should be taken, however, in the case in hand the applicant-appellant has miserably failed to file supplementary affidavit and to offer explanation as to where the matter remained held up during the period 23.5.2014 to 18.1.2015. Therefore, sufficient cause has not been shown, which is paramount consideration, while considering an application of this nature. I, therefore, find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.