Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukesh Dhakad on 26 August, 2014
1
Writ Appeal No.403/2014
26.08.2014
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for the
appellant / State.
Heard on IA No.1994/2014, an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal.
The delay is of 650 days.
Following is the explanation offered in the application for
condonation of delay: -
"1. That the appellants have filed Writ Appeal
before this Hon'ble Court against the dated
16.03.2012 passed in W.P. No.970/11 (S)
(ANNEXURE A/1) by Hon'ble Single Judge
whereby the petition preferred by the
respondent has been allowed.
2. The delay is being explained as under :-
(i) That the order was passed on 16.03.12.
(ii) Copy of the order was applied on 20.04.12 and received on 25.04.12.
(iii) Thereafter the matter was sent to the Higher authority and the higher authority directed to obtain opinion of the Government Advocate.
(iv) Thereafter a letter dated 21.08.12 was sent to the Government Advocate.
(v) The opinion of the Government Advocate was received 28.08.12.
(vi) Thereafter vide letter dated 29.08.12 the matter was sent to the Rajya Shiksha Kendra.
(vii) Thereafter in 17 other similar matters the letter dated 27.08.12 was sent to the Government Advocate for opinion in view of the letters dated 22.08.12 and 03.09.12 of the Rajya Shiksha Kendra.
(viii) Thereafter vide letter 10.09.12 opinion in other 17 similar matters was sent to the Rajya Shiksha Kendra along with copies of 2 the petitions.
(ix) Vide letter 23.12.2013 complete record of the cases was sent to the Rajya Shiksha Kendra, Bhopal.
(x) Vide letter dated 14.03.13 the Rajya Shiksha Kendra required more documents.
(xi) Vide letter dated 15.04.13 reminder for W.A. was sent.
(xii) 08.05.13 the matters of all the concerning persons were scrutinized by the competent authority.
(xiii) Vide letter dated 08.05.13 information to all the concerning employees was sent for personal hearing.
(xiv) Vide memo dated 11.10.13 the permission by the Law Department was given.
(xv) The said permission was received on 21.10.13 by the OIC.
(xvi) Thereafter the letters dated 31.10.13, 07.01.14 and 26.02.14 were sent to the Government Advocate regarding filing of Writ Appeal in response to the same personal appearance of the Officer in charge of the case with complete record was required, thereafter the OIC contacted the office Advocate General on 28.02.14.
(xvii) The Government counsel had opined to comply with the order and matter was processed in this regard and opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the concerning employees, and ultimately it was decided by the State to file Writ Appeal in this matter.
(xviii)Therefore, the appeal is filed with some delay due to the fact that the order of code of conduct was imposed and the OIC was on election duty. The delay is bona fide and deserves to be condoned.
3. That after receiving the permission from the Law Department, and as per instruction 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 3 perused and appeal was drafted and same is being filed without any further delay.
3. It is most humbly submitted that the delay of 650 days has been caused due to aforesaid circumstances and procedure and same is bonafide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and there is no willful and deliberate delay in filing this Writ Appeal."
Having gone through the aforesaid reasons, we find that the explanation seeking condonation of such a huge delay is not satisfactory.
The Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 after examining the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, which was of 427 days, the Supreme Court has made the following observation: -
"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.
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 4 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."
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].
Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that there is no justification to condone such a huge unexplained delay. The application is, therefore, rejected.
As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.
(Shantanu Kemkar) (Mool Chand Garg)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC