Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Haryana State vs Rajender Kumar on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta
1
ITEM NO.2 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 12681/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
25-02-2019 in RSA No. 3001/1996 passed by the High Court Of
Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
HARYANA STATE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.74247/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.74249/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 12-03-2021This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devendra Saini, Addl. A.G.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR
Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Special Leave Petition has been filed with delay of 383 days with an explanation given in the application for condonation of delay which gives only a saga of moving of file from one place to the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.03.12 other and that too with long interludes. 17:25:55 IST Reason:
We must note with regret the casual manner in which the application for condonation of delay has 2 been filed. We are reproducing the relevant paragraphs to appreciate the extent of casualness where even the relevant dates have been left blank. We reproduce paragraph 4 to 8 as under:
“ 4. That on 25.02.2019 impugned orders was passed. After obtaining Copy of Judgment matter was discussed with the senior official of the petitioners. On request by the department, office of Advocate General, Haryana gave its legal Opinion dated ……… in which matter was found fit for filing of SLP.
5. That in the light of above Opinion dated…….,case was considered by the senior officers of the petitioner. And it was approved by petitioner department that SLP may be filed and a request was made to the office of Advocate General, Haryana to assign appropriate standing counsel at Supreme Court for filing of SLP. On……Office of Advocate General marked the present matter to present counsel for filing of SLP.
6. Thereafter petitioner department requested the present counsel to file the SLP. And some documents along with Vakalatnama were sent to present counsel, which were found insufficient/defective by the present counsel and thus advised to cure the defects of Vakalatnama and Affidavits.
7. That as per requirement of present counsel for Purchase of Court Fee and other Misc. Legal Expenses process was initiated.
8. That thereafter two-three legal conferences with the present counsel, finally on 10.02.2020 tentative Draft of SLP was prepared and sent to petitioner by the present counsel for approval/remarks on the same. Sanction of amount for payment of Court Fee and Legal expenses also took time.” 3 The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner(s), there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living 4 Media India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.
We have also categorized such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.
Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare within four weeks. The amount be 5 recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the same period of time.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.
Pending application stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed before the Chief Secretary for the State of Haryana cautioning that any non-adherence with the aforesaid order within timeline would result in appropriate proceedings being initiated against the Chief Secretary himself.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)