Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 462 (PAT)

Union of India v. Pintoo Kumar Singh

2023-04-12

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, PARTHA SARTHY

body2023
Partha Sarthy, J. – The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2018 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 4547 of 2017 (Pintu Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. the Union of India & Ors.). 2. The appeal having been preferred after a delay of 4 years 6 months 21 days, the appellants have filed an application (I. A. No. 2 of 2023) praying for condonation of delay in filing of the instant appeal. I. A. No. 2 of 2023 3. The instant application has been filed by the appellants praying for condoning the delay of 1711 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4547 of 2017. 4. It is the case of the appellants that the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate but is on account of departmental and administrative procedures involved for filing of this appeal. Further, considerable time was lost during the course of pandemic lock down. Swift action was initiated at every stage, ever since Ministry was brought into picture in the case in August, 2022. 5. It was submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants that unlike the private litigants the matters relating to Government are required to be considered at various levels. Referring to paragraph no.7 of the application filed for condonation of delay wherein the date of events and the events leading to filing of the instant appeal has been mentioned, it is stated that vide order dated 5.4.2018 the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ application. The matter was examined by the Staff Selection Commission which passed order dated 3.7.2018 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. Thereafter a contempt application was preferred wherein response was filed by the Staff Selection Commission. After hearing the parties on a number of dates, by order dated 18.8.2022, the learned Court hearing the contempt application directed the respondents either to implement the order dated 5.4.2018 or to appear personally. Thereafter a contempt application was preferred wherein response was filed by the Staff Selection Commission. After hearing the parties on a number of dates, by order dated 18.8.2022, the learned Court hearing the contempt application directed the respondents either to implement the order dated 5.4.2018 or to appear personally. Thereafter on the letter dated 18.8.2022 being written by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the Ministry of Home Affairs, a meeting of the representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Staff Selection Commission, Department of Legal affairs and the CRPF took place on 20.8.2022 and again on 26.8.2022 when it was decided that an SLP be preferred against the judgment dated 5.4.2018. Finally, an SLP vide Diary no.38107/2022 was preferred in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in November 2022. The said case was disposed of directing the Union of India to prefer an LPA against the order dated 5.4.2018. Soon thereafter the instant appeal was filed. 6. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that in view of the events narrated herein above as also in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the delay due to bureaucratic processes or administrative reasons may constitute ‘sufficient cause’ as required under the Limitation Act. Thus, it was submitted that taking a lenient view in the matter, the delay in filing of the memo of appeal be condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on its own merits. 7. The application filed by the appellants praying for condonation of delay is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their submission have relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP(Civil) Diary No.34772 of 2022 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Vimla Devi) dated 12.12.2022 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ]. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it transpires that the appeal in the instant case has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2018 passed in C.W.J.C No.4547 of 2017 (Pintu Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.) and other analogous cases after a delay of 4 years 6 months 21 days. 10. vs. Union of India and Ors.) and other analogous cases after a delay of 4 years 6 months 21 days. 10. On perusal of the records of the writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 4547 of 2017) it transpires that prior to filing of the writ application on 24.3.2017, a copy of the petition was served on learned counsel for the Union of India on 6.3.2017. Learned counsel for the Union of India continued to appear, filed their affidavits through out the proceedings of the writ application as also was heard at length when the writ application was finally decided by judgment dated 5.4.2018. On further perusal of the records it transpires that the copy of the final order dated 5.4.2018 passed in the writ application was forwarded by this Court to the Chairman, Central Staff Selection Commission, Lodi Road, New Delhi vide memo no.4604 dated 3.5.2018 and also to the Director General, CRFP, CGO Complex, New Delhi vide Memo no.4605 dated 3.5.2018. 11. Subsequently, a contempt application (M.J.C. no.2326 of 2018) arising out of the judgment impugned was preferred in this Court, once again after serving a copy of the same on learned counsel for the Union of India. Further, from perusal of the narration of the events as given by the appellant in paragraph no.7 of their application, it would transpire that absolutely no explanation has been furnished for the period from 5.4.2018 till November, 2022 when the SLP was preferred in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even SLP Diary no. 34772 of 2022 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 3.1.2023 observing that the intra Court appeal be filed expeditiously and preferably within a period of 7 days. 12. In the wake of above noted facts it would be beneficial at this juncture to notice the principle laid by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ] in paragraphs 27 to 29 which read as under: – “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of g limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ] in paragraphs 27 to 29 which read as under: – “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of g 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. 28. 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 bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial a 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. 29. 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 13. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the Court is not at all satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. The judgment under challenge is dated 5.4.2018 whereas the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions came into effect only in March, 2020. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the Court is not at all satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. The judgment under challenge is dated 5.4.2018 whereas the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions came into effect only in March, 2020. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ‘COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION IN RE’ for the purpose of limitation in filing of the suits/appeals etc. directed for exclusion of the period from 15.3.2020 till 14.3.2021. The last date for preferring an appeal in the instant case was 5.5.2018. The appellant still does not have any explanation for the period from 5.5.2018 to 14.3.2020 as also from 15.3.2021 till the date of filing i.e. 13.1.2023. 14. Thus by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the appellants have made out sufficient cause for not having been able to file the appeal within the time prescribed. 15. There being no merit in the limitation petition, the same is dismissed. 16. The limitation petition (I. A. No. 2 of 2023) having been dismissed, the main appeal also stands dismissed. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – I agree.