Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Virendra Kumar Sharma on 18 June, 2014
Writ Appeal No.509/2014
18.06.2014
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for
appellants/ State.
Heard on IA No.2708/2014, an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
This order shall dispose of the application for condonation
of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 15.05.2012
which is barred by 625 days. The appellants seeking
condonation of delay has taken the following grounds:-
"1. That the appellants have filed
writ appeal before this Ho'ble Court against
the order dated 15.05.2012 passed in
W.P.No.3739/08 (S) (Annexure A/1). By
Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the petition
preferred by the respondent has been
allowed.
2. It is submitted that the order was passed on 15.05.12. Copy of the order was applied on 04.04.14 and after receiving the copy of the order a letter dated 05.04.14 was sent to the Government Advocate vide letter dated 09.04.14. Thereafter the opinion was sent to the Head Office at Bhopal for further proceedings for filing the writ appeal.
3. Thereafter, the Officer in charge collected the record of the case and contacted the office of Advocate General at Indore where the record of the case was perused and appeal was drafted and same is being filed without any further delay." This shows that except for the lethargy on the part of the officer of the Government at any stage no other cogent reason has been shown for seeking condonation of delay.
The law with respect to the consideration of sufficient cause is well settled in the latest judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"11) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit"
sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.
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 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 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.
14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs."
The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav [(2014) 2 SCC 422].
Accordingly, we find no good reason to condone the delay in this case. I.A.no.2708/2014 is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed.
C.C.as per rules.
(SHANTANU KEMKAR) ( M. C. GARG )
JUDGE JUDGE