Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Reliance Industries Ltd Thro.Manager on 6 April, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
14612 of 2014
In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 545 of 2014
===========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s) Versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD THRO.MANAGER....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MEGHA JANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 6/04/2015 CAV ORDER Heard learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani for the respondent - Company.
2. The applicant - State has to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2009 by the Sessions Judge of Kutch at Bhuj, whereby the appeal u/s.6(C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the present respondent was allowed and thereby order dated 3.10.2009 and show-cause notice dated 20.7.2009 by the Collector, Bhuj was set-aside. However, in filing such revision application, there is delay of 597 days. Therefore, by present application, the State has prayed to condone such delay.
3. Though condonation of delay is based upon the proof of sufficient cause for not filing the revision application in the prescribed period of limitation only, the fact remains that the merits of the main dispute is equally important to realize the real dispute and issue between the parties, so also to scrutinize that whether reasons pleaded for condoning the delay would fall within the consideration of the phrase "sufficient cause", so as to condone such delay, more particularly, when it is for 597 days i.e. more than an year.
Page 1 of 6R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER
4. At the same time, it is also clear that in such application, the reason for delay needs to be explained, if not for day to day, then atleast reasonable cause must be shown as to consider it as a sufficient cause for not filing the litigation in prescribed period of limitation.
5. If we peruse the factual details, it seems that no care has been taken by the State in dealing with the issue on hand. The order impugned under is an order of acquittal and certified copy of such order dated 25.10.2012 was applied for the first time only on 9.7.2014 i.e. almost after 20 months, though limitation for filing revision is only 60 days i.e. only two months. Thereby, the appeal needs to be filed on or before 23.1.2013, whereas it is filed as late as on 12.9.2014. For such inordinate delay, what is contended in paragraph 4 of the application is only the history of how the matter was dragged from one office to another, but the fact remains that practically after the order dated 25.10.2012, certified copy of the judgment and order was never applied till 9.7.2014 i.e. for more than 20 months and, therefore, now, the applicant is not entitled to the grace period also. However, when the certified copy was provided within 3 days, it is not the material issue, when the total delay is for 597 days. What is contended thereafter is also surprising to note that for the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2012, that District Supply Officer of Bhuj has forwarded proposal to file appeal only on 7.6.2014. Thereafter, time-table was shown that how file has been dealt with from 7.6.2014 in the office of the Government Pleader and the Government till 5.7.2014 when decision was taken to file an appeal and, thereafter, certified copy was applied. For the sake of argument, even if we consider such inordinate delay even thereafter when they have already decided to file an appeal, they could not file it within 60 days after the receipt of the certified copy, thereby now they have to explain day to day delay.
6. For all such delay, it is contended in paragraph 5 of the application Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER that there is no inaction or negligence or dereliction of the duty on the part of the applicant and the delay has been caused genuinely in collecting necessary information and material and following the proper administrative procedure.
7. Such lethargy has been challenged by the respondent by filing the affidavit-in-reply contending that in fact there is an admission on the part of the applicant regarding their inordinate delay and, therefore, applicant shall be put to strict proof of having sought the opinion as pleaded and that applicant has failed to explain that why action was not taken even after the opinion and practically delay from 29.11.2012 till 7.5.2014 remains unexplained since no reasons are furnished for such delay.
8. To meet with such specific defence, the applicant has filed an additional affidavit, wherein in paragraph 2, it is categorically admitted by them that since there was insufficient ground stated in the application, they are filing such affidavit explaining the reason of delay as directed by the High Court. Such act requires to be deprecated inasmuch as there is never a direction from the High Court to file any such affidavit. However, if we peruse the additional affidavit, it becomes clear that the grounds in paragraph 3 of such additional affidavit is nothing but a paraphrase of the grounds stated in paragraph 3 and 4 of main petition. Thereby, in fact, there is no further explanation about such delay except reproduction of same story again. What is added in such additional affidavit is the issue of law that there are catena of decisions wherein long delay has been condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, contending that Government decisions are proverbially slow and to support such stand, the deponent has tried to reproduce certain observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in her affidavit. In short, there is no sufficient ground either pleaded or proved on record to consider that there is sufficient cause to condone such inordinate delay.
Page 3 of 6R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER
9. As aforesaid, though merits of the main matter is not to be decided at this stage, the factual details needs to be examined to understand the real dispute. Therefore, if we peruse the revision application, it becomes clear that the show-cause notice and order of confiscation of goods worth more than Rs.1 Crore was passed by the Collector only on some irrelevant grounds and surmises without realizing that technical irregularities, if any, were in fact rectified by the competent authority itself while permitting the respondent to store the material at Kandla before transporting it to Vadodara and that too with the company, which has license to store such goods. Therefore, if we scrutinize the factual details and consider the rival submissions, it becomes clear that it is not the case of the State that the respondent has either imported or stored the goods in question in contravention of any statute or rules or without license or permission. The only issue was with reference to the storage before transportation after import, when it was stored at Kandla on its arrival from outside the country and before transporting to Vadodara. Therefore, at the most, there was some irregularities, but the record shows that even that irregularity has been condoned by the competent authority being Collector, Vadodara by issuing corrigendum and thereby permitting the defendant - company to temporarily store the goods even at Kandla. It is also undisputed fact that the warehouse where the material in question was stored, having similar license to store similar goods and, therefore, there is nothing in the impugned judgment of appeal, which allows this Court to interfere it in a revisional jurisdiction. In view of such prima facie observation on merits, there is no reason to condone the delay. However, so far as merits of main revision is concerned, it would not be necessary and appropriate to discuss and determine it in detail, when application for condonation of delay itself is required to be rejected.
10. Learned advocate for the respondent is relying upon following decisions:-
Page 4 of 6R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER (1) Kumar Vs. Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank reported in (2013)11 SCC 668, wherein it is held that when no satisfaction could have been reasonably reached, that complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing revision application in time, delay could not be condoned.
(2) Basawaraj & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013)14 SCC 81, the Supreme Court has held that if party acted with negligence, lack of benefit or inaction, then,there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay.
11. However, reference to following decisions are also necessary, which confirms that in such cases Court should not be liberal in condoning the delay.
1. (2010)2 SCC 114 - Dalipsingh Vs.State of UP & Ors.
2. (2012)8 SCC 524 - Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory.
3. (2012)5 SCC 157 - Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai.
4. (2012)3 SCC 563 - Post Master General & Ors. Vs.Living Media India Ltd. & Ors.
5. (2010)8 SCC 685 - Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others
6. (2010)5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr.
7. (2008)17 SCC 448 - Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) Vs.Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr.
8. (1997)7 SCC 556 - P.K. Ramachandran Vs.State of Kerala & Anr.
9. 2012(7) SCALE 230 - B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy
12. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the present application to condone the inordinate delay of 597 days and, hence, said application is dismissed.
13. Rule discharged.
(S.G.SHAH, J.)
Page 5 of 6
R/CR.MA/14612/2014 CAV ORDER
binoy
Page 6 of 6