Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 17 (MEG)

State of Meghalaya v. Srikant Rai

2019-02-12

H.S.THANGKHIEW, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Delay of 351 days in preferring the appeal is sought to be condoned on the grounds as projected in the application seeking condonation. We have considered the averments of the application as well as objection filed by the respondents. 2. Appeal is proposed to be filed after the prescribed period of limitation against the judgment dated 13.11.2017 rendered in WP (C) No. 374 of 2014. Learned Single Judge while noticing that the respondents have completed more than 28 years of continuous service has not been regularized has issued a direction same reads as under:- "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and without going into the merit of the present case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the case of the petitioners before the Cabinet for consideration and appropriate orders expeditiously, in accordance with law. No order as to costs." 3. This direction has remained to be implemented for a period of more than one year as a result whereof respondents (writ petitioners) have launched contempt proceedings. To negate the operation of contempt proceedings, it appears that the appellants have proposed to file appeal after a delay of 351 days. 4. In the application seeking condonation it has been stated that the said judgment dated 13.11.2017 had to be sent to various departments for opinions. Furthermore, matter could not be finalized, for want of Cabinet meetings. 5. The words "sufficient cause" as it appear in Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time, has to be liberally construed when State is a litigant in view of prevalent red-tapism some more leniency is warranted but not beyond proportions. When the seeker of condonation is found to be indolent and grounds projected for condonation are totally trash and unacceptable then Court has to apply rigor of limit action even if it operates harshly. It is unimaginable that for a period of more than one year there could be no cabinet meeting. It is also quite disturbing that the opinion whatever was required from the concerned departments could not be obtained for a period of more than one year. Under such circumstances if delay is condoned same shall be totally travesty of justice and shall be totally to the disadvantage of the person waiting for reaping the fruits of the litigation. 6. It is also quite disturbing that the opinion whatever was required from the concerned departments could not be obtained for a period of more than one year. Under such circumstances if delay is condoned same shall be totally travesty of justice and shall be totally to the disadvantage of the person waiting for reaping the fruits of the litigation. 6. We are inclined to dismiss the application seeking condonation with heavy cost but for fair and candid submission of learned Advocate General i.e. leaned Advocate General is fair enough to state that steps are taken and the competent authority will implement the judgment in its letter and spirit with promptitude. 7. The application seeking condonation of delay by no stretch of imagination is worth to be accepted as such dismissed. As a necessary corollary thereto, appeal as proposed to be preferred shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation.