Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1010 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ramswaroop Sharma

2023-05-03

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 275 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 2. In Para 2 of the application, which apparently is in the nature of a cyclostyle copy, it is stated as under:- '2. That the Government Advocate on 1610-2017 gave his opinion on 8/11/2017.' 3. The aforesaid averment does not make any sense. It is further stated therein that thereafter, the file was sent by the District Superintendent of Police on 08.11.2017 to the Additional Director General of Police; but, the application is completely silent as to when and where the file travelled thereafter which resulted into inordinate delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal except rhetorically detailing the routine Government system in which the file travels. Therefore, the application does not contain reasons explaining the delay. 4. A Division Bench of this Court has, vide order dated 05.07.2022 in case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.798/2022, held as under:- 'We have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not travel beyond rhetoric of usual delay caused in movement of files from one table to the other. Lack of promptitude and lethargy in movement of files in filing of appeals/petitions by the State was deprecated by their Lordships in the Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below- '3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: '12) 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. 13) 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 dutieswith diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their dutieswith 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.' Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!' In another decision, in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 233 also, in the factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65 of the said judgment as below - '65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being: '2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer in-charge charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.' However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below: '66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also.' 5. Another Division Bench of this Court in case of The Managing Committee, Gyanjyoti Senior Secondary School Vs. Tejpal Singh Tyagi & Ors.: MANU/RH/1125/2012 held as under:- 6. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions and appeals after inordinate delay of the expiry of period of limitation. 7. In the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in MANU/SC/0132/2012: (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Hon'ble Apex Court hammered the appellant-Government Department, who filed the Special Leave to Appeal after an inordinate delay of 427 days of the expiry of period of limitation and posed a burning question as to why should the delay be condoned mechanically because the Government or a wing of Government was a party before them? The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Government Department cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. Since the Government Department miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason sufficient to condone a huge delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal in limine merely on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon some other judgments of its own court, which are cited hereto. 8. In the case of CWT vs. Amateur Riders Club reported in: 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus: 3... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. The Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon some other judgments of its own court, which are cited hereto. 8. In the case of CWT vs. Amateur Riders Club reported in: 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus: 3... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that the Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest. 9. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Paul vs. Jalgaon Medium Project reported in MANU/SC/4694/2008: (2008) 17 SCC 448 , the Hon'ble Apex court held as under: 17.. The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights'. 10. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly on the part of the Government and Government undertaking, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: 29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 11. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 11. Similarly in the case of S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in MANU/SC/0041/2009: (2009) 2 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the delay defeats equity and relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated person who approached the court in time. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed, "it is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, relief prayed for, may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates, who obtained the benefit of the judgment." 12. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the cause shown in filing the instant appeal after 703 days of the expiry of period of limitation in the application does not seem to be plausible and acceptable. E Contra, the explanation furnished in filing the appeal after an inordinate delay of 703 days is not found to be based on any cogent and acceptable reasoning, Hence, on account of there being insufficient cause for filing the appeal with inordinate delay of 703 days of expiry of the period of limitation, which is found not to have been properly explained, we find no merit in I.A. No. 10383 dated 6.4.2011 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the same stands dismissed accordingly. On account of dismissal of I.A. No. 10383 dated 6.4.2011, the instant appeal also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 6. As already observed, a perusal of the application reveals that the appellants have shown their callous and apathetic attitude in seeking condonation of delay inasmuch as reasons furnished therein are far from satisfactory. In these circumstances, in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, the delay in preferring the second appeal does not deserve to be condoned. 7. 6. As already observed, a perusal of the application reveals that the appellants have shown their callous and apathetic attitude in seeking condonation of delay inasmuch as reasons furnished therein are far from satisfactory. In these circumstances, in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, the delay in preferring the second appeal does not deserve to be condoned. 7. The application is dismissed accordingly with a cost of Rs.5,000/- being wholly misconceived which shall be deposited by the appellants with the Litigants Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Resultantly, the civil second appeal also stands dismissed.