Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Electricity Bo vs Khursid Alam & Anr on 29 July, 2010
Author: Sushil Harkauli
Bench: D. N. Patel, Sushil Harkauli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 127 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Santosh Mandal & anr.
With
M. A. No. 128 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Malika Mandal & anr.
With
M. A. No. 129 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Khurshid Alam & anr.
With
M. A. No. 130 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Gulab Ali & anr.
With
M. A. No. 131 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Md. Sufiyan & anr.
With
M. A. No. 132 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Md. Nizamuddin & anr.
With
M. A. No. 133 of 2009
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & ors. Vrs. Md. Zakaria & anr.
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
------
For the Appellants : Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr, Advocate
Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents : M/s Uday Choudhary, Mukesh Kumar
& Rahul Gupta, Advocates
------
I.A. Nos. 345, 340, 341, 339, 342, 344, 343 of 2010
6/ 29.7.2010We have heard both sides.
These appeals barred by 271 days.
The explanations for the delay as given in the delay condonation application is contained in paragraph nos. 4 to 7 of that application, which are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"4. That the Dumka office of the Electricity Board after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 25.6.2008 sent the same to the Board's Headquarter for further action and the needful.
5. That the Law Department of the Electricity Board thereafter, sought entire case record from Dumka office and after receiving the same a decision thereafter had been taken to prefer the appeal against the impugned order dated 25.6.2008 before this Hon'ble Court.
6. That on account of official procedure, a delay of 271 days has occurred in filing the appeal which is bona fide and unintentional and on account of the aforesaid reason the memo of appeal could not be filed before this Hon'ble Court within limitation period.
7. That after the decision taken, at the Headquarter level regarding filing of the appeal, a draft was prepared by the conducting counsel and after legal vetting of the same, the memo of appeal has been presented for filing on 27.5.2009 before this Hon'ble Court".
A counter affidavit has been filed opposing the delay condonation application, in which, it has been stated that reasons given are not sufficient for condonation for delay.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a person seeking condonation of delay to show that there was "sufficient" cause for not preferring the appeal or the application within the prescribed time, which in the present case is 60 days.
It is obvious that said requirement of the aforesaid provision of the Limitation Act is not to be so interpreted or applied as to render it meaningless. It is not for the Courts to start condoning delay on grounds of misplaced sympathy, which may become counter productive by putting the officials in-charge of litigations into a further sense of complacency.
In our opinion, unless the Courts apply the law properly with liberality, wherever deserved, the persons in-charge of litigation will keep treating the law of limitation with the kind of over-causality that is being shown in the condonation application.
We are not inclined to allow the condonation application. Condonation applications ( I.A. Nos. 345, 340, 341, 339, 342, 344, 343 of 2010 ) are rejected. All memo of appeals are also rejected as being time barred.
(Sushil Harkauli, A.C.J.) ( D. N. Patel, J.) R.Kr.