Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 873 (PNJ)

SUSHMA v. STATE OF HARYANA

2016-03-04

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Daya Chaudhary, J. CM No.13679 of 2015 1. Allowed as prayed for. CM No.2624 of 2016 2. This is an application for placing on record reply of the civil misc. application as well as the review application along with copies of Annexures A-1 to A-9. Application is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-9 are taken on record. CM No.13680 of 2015 2. This is an application for condonation of 568 days' delay in filing the review application. 3. Reply of the application has been filed. Delay of 568 days in filing the review application has not been properly explained. Only on the ground that delay has occurred because of administrative process is not sufficient unless the same is properly explained. Application for condonation of delay was not accepted and a detailed order was passed by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Office of the Chief Post Master Genreal and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.", 2012(2) SCT 269, in which there was a delay of 427 days caused by the instrumentality of the State, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed with the following observations:- "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. 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 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 redtape 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." Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Review Application No.426 of 2015 4. The judgment dated 18.02.2014 passed in CWP No.8998 of 2012, was challenged by way of filing LPA No.1603 of 2014 by the Governing Body, Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani (Haryana) and another, which was dismissed and judgment of Single Bench was upheld and the same has not been challenged. 5. Keeping in view the unexplained delay and the fact that the LPA has also been dismissed, no ground is made out to review the judgment dated 18.02.2014 and as such, review application is dismissed.