Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Cm Nos. 285 & 286/2023 vs Kuldeep Raj & Ors on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Tashi Rabstan, Mohan Lal
S. No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
LPA No. 05/2023
CM Nos. 285 & 286/2023
Reserved on : 02.08.2023
Pronounced on: 16.08.2023
UT of J&K & Ors. ....Applicant(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
V/s
Kuldeep Raj & Ors ....Respondent(s)
7.
Through:- Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
O R D E R
CM No. 285/2023
1. Applicants/appellants have preferred instant application in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act r/w Rule 44 of the J&K High Court Rules seeking condonation of 275 days delay in filing the LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) against the judgment/order dated 11.02.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this court in OWP No. 644/2019 titled Kuldeep Raj & Others Vs. State of J&K & Ors, whereby, the appellants-respondents therein were directed to process and make the payment of compensation to the respondents herein in accordance with the law for their respective portion of land taken over from them while treating the same to have been acquired pursuant to Notification No. 08 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018 issued under Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990 (Svt) r/w Notice No. DCK/ADCK/LA/2017-18/211-16 dated 23.01.2018 issued under Sections 9 & 9-A of the Act of 1990.
2. It is averred, that the judgment was announced on 11.02.2022, on receipt of copy of the judgment from the Hon'ble High Court matter was referred to the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of UT of J&K alongwith the record of the case for it's examination and opinion, the Law Department after examining the judgment in the light of the record of the case and taking a holistic view of the matter advised the appellant to file the appeal before the High Court against the impugned judgment vide communication dated 11.11.2022, the appellant on receipt of the 2 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 communication from the Government immediately contacted his counsel namely Sh. S. S. Nanda Sr. AAG and steps were taken for the drafting of the appeal and filing of the same before the Hon'ble Court without any further delay. It is contended, that before the appeal could be filed, the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar vide order dated 23.11.2022 ordered that the litigation work pertaining to the Revenue Department before the Jammu Wing of the High Court shall be dealt with by Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG, the appellant immediately vide his office letter DCK/LEGAL/2022-23/510-512 dated 26.11.2022 took up the matter with the Law Department to request Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG to file and conduct LPA before the Hon'ble High Court at Jammu, the Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar vide office communication No. Law-Lit9/524/2022-10 dated 28.11.2022 requested Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG to file and conduct LPA before Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. It is stated, that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but because of the circumstances detailed above, the delay caused in filing the appeal is with all bonafide and no malafide are involved in it, the issues involved in the appeal are vital in nature and can only be argued once the Hon'ble Court permits the appellant to do so by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Application is supported by an affidavit.
3. Respondents in their counter have opposed the application seeking condonation of delay and have sought it's dismissal on the grounds, that the above titled LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) is hopelessly time barred as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal and the appellants have miserably failed to give any plausible reason/justification for delay in preferring the above titled LPA. It is contended, that the judgment was passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellants and therefore the counsel for the appellant was very much aware about the judgment impugned the moment same was passed by the writ court on 11.02.2022, appellants in their application have neither placed on record anything nor uttered even a single word as to the date when they received the copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2022 and as to the date when they sought legal opinion and when they applied for the sanction to prefer the above titled appeal before this Court. It is stated, that immediately after the judgment impugned was passed by the writ court, a copy of the same was furnished to 3 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 the appellants/respondents therein though with a request to comply the same, the appellants did not take any action in this direction and finally respondents herein were constrained to prefer a contempt petition before the Ld. Single Judge bearing CCP (s) No. 22912022 on 17.08.2022 and the Court vide order dated 23.08.2022 directed the appellants herein to file a compliance report in terms of the judgment passed by the writ court on 11.02.2022 and the next date of hearing was fixed on 26.09.2022. It is contended, that the appellants were granted various opportunities to file compliance report, but the same was not filed and vide order 31.12.2022 appellants were granted last and final opportunity to file compliance report with a further condition that failing which appellants shall appear in person, thereafter, the appellants instead of complying with the impugned judgment, preferred the above titled appeal before this Court alongwith application seeking condonation of delay, which clearly shows malafide on the part of the appellants so that respondents herein are deprived of their compensation which they are legally entitled to receive in lieu of the land acquired by the appellants. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the application with heavy cost.
4. Mrs. Monika Kohli, Ld. Sr. AAG for the applicants/appellants while reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of the application has sought condonation of delay in filing the LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) against the judgment/order dated 11.02.2022 of the Single Judge of this Court by canvassing arguments, that Law Department of UT of J&K after examining the impugned judgment/order and taking holistic view of the matter advised the appellant to file LPA vide communication dated 11.11.2022, appellant contacted Sh. S.S. Nanda Sr. AAG in terms of order of Department of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs UT of J&K dated 23.11.2022 but in the meantime the Revenue Department of Jammu Wing of J&K High Court was assigned to her whereby appellant immediately vide letter dated 26.11.2022 took up the matter with Law Department to request her to file LPA. It is argued, that the delay in filing LPA is neither deliberate nor intentional, but because of the circumstances and reasons stated above, the delay is with all bonafides and not with any malafide, the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits, the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the end of justice, a 4 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 liberal approach is required to be adopted while condoning the delay, the matter/issues involved between the parties must be decided on merits of the case and not on mere technicalities of law, appellant in the case in hand therefore has carved out a strong case for condonation of delay. To support her arguments, Ld. Sr. AAG has relied upon the judgments reported in (i) AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 [Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors] (ii) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 [State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors] & (iii) 1996 SCALE (5) 548 [The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs K. V. Ayisumma].
5. Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondents, has opposed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing instant LPA by strenuously articulating arguments, that the appeal is hopelessly time barred as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal. It is argued, that the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2022 was passed in the presence of the counsel for applicants/appellants who was very much aware about the judgment impugned, applicants/appellants in their application have neither placed on record anything nor uttered even a single word as to the date when they received the copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2022 and as to the date when they sought legal opinion and when they applied for the sanction to prefer the above titled appeal before this Court. It is moreso argued, that immediately after the judgment impugned was passed by the writ court, a copy of the same was furnished to the applicants/appellants though with a request to comply the same, appellants did not comply the judgment whereof contempt petition bearing CCP (s) No. 22912022 dated 17.08.2022 was filed before the Ld. Single Judge who vide its order dated 23.08.2022 directed appellants to file compliance report, but instead of filing the compliance report the appellants preferred the instant LPA well aware of the date of passing the impugned judgment. It is urged, that the condonation of delay application suffers from delay and latches, there is no explanation of ―sufficient cause‖ for such delay, the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government department, there is absence of diligence by the department in prosecuting the instant LPA, there is no explanation offered as to why application for procuring certified copies of impugned judgment was not within prescribed period, unexplained delay has occasion at every stage though the authorities/Government were well aware of the issues involved including prescribed period of limitation. It is enthusiastically argued, that 5 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 the condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Govt. departments and offering usual explanation, moving of file from one department/officer to other is not sufficient reason for condoning such an abnormal delay, no details of the delay of 275 days have been given as if the appellant has inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Govt. and moreso the law of limitation apparently does not apply to State Govt. according to its conduct. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) (1997) 7 SCC 556 [P.K. Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala & Anr], (ii) (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cacse 563 [POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS versus LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER], (iii) (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 [STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER versus AMAR NATH YADAV], (iv) 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1314 [State of Bihar and Others---Petitioner(s) v. Deo Kumar Singh and Others---Respondent(s)], (v) 2020) 13 SCC 745 [Appellants: University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.], (vi) (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus BHERULAL] and also the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court viz; (vii) Union Territory of J&K and others vs Abdul Rehman and others [LPA No. 107/2021 CM Nos. 2561/2022, 7968/2021, 7969/2021] &
(viii) State of J&K and others vs Anil Raina and others [CDLSW No. 74/2018.
6. We have heard Mrs. Monika Kohli Ld. Sr. AAG for applicants/appellants & Sh. Jagpal Singh Ld. Counsel for respondents. We have also gone through the relevant law on the subject matter and scanned ratios of the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.
7. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 [Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period] of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ―merits‖. The expression ―sufficient cause‖ employed by the 6 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life- purpose for the existence of the institution of the courts.
8. Firstly, we will appreciate the ratios of judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicants/appellants to find out whether in the facts of the case in hand, a case for condonation of delay has been made out by the appellants. In AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 [Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for appellants, Hon'ble Supreme Court by allowing the appeal filed by State of J&K held, that a delay of 4 days in filing appeal is sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 [State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for appellants, Hon'ble Supreme Court while appreciating the expression ―sufficient cause‖ condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal and held, that there should be pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay and the matters should be decided by the court on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. In 1996 SCALE (5) 548 [The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala vs K. V. Ayisumma] also relied by Ld. Counsel for appellants, facts of the case are, that in a case of acquisition of land for public purpose the reference court by it's order dated 31.03.1989 enhanced the compensation, appellant filed a review application on 29.07.1991, the delay in filing the application was condoned by Subordinate Judge but High Court of Kerala set aside the order of Subordinate Judge. In appeal, while setting aside the order of High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay by observing that the approach of court should be pragmatic but not pedantic and the correct approach is that delay should be condoned without insisting upon every days delay.
9. Recently, the law regarding limitation and delay in filing appeals has undergone a sea change. The litigant party seeking condonation of delay has to tender an explanation for the delay as reasonable or satisfactory which is an essential pre-requisite to condonation of delay. Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all it's rigor when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In the matter of condonation of delay and latches the well accepted position is, that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with, the inordinate delay should not be 7 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which appellant proceeds with the matter as it would be contrary to public interest.
10. We, now would like to appreciate the ratios of judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondent to find out whether in the facts of the case in hand, appellant has carved out a case for condonation of delay in filing the present LPA. In (1997) 7 SCC 556 [P.K. Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala & Anr] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting application for condonation of delay in filing civil appeal after a delay of 565 days held, that the law of limitation has to be applied with all it's rigor when the statute so prescribes, and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
In (2012) 3 Supreme Court cases 563 [POST MASTER GENERAL & OTHERS.... Appellant(s) Versus LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER.... Respondent(s)] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the appellants after a delay of 427 days in paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30 of the judgment held as under:-
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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 8 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
In (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 [STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER--Petitioner Versus AMAR NATH YADAV--Respondent] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing an application for condonation of delay of 481 days in filing SLP in paras 2&3 of the judgment held as under:-
2. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd.; (2012) 3 SCC 563 has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government Authorities/ Departments in the following words:-
―27. 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 9 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 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.
28. 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 bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, 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.
29. 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 usual explanation that the file was kept pending for 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 the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. 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.
3. We further find that in identical circumstances in similar type of case which also arose against the award of the Labour Court, upheld by the High Court this court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition on that ground. That was CC No. 5368/2013 titled State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Hanuman which was dismissed on 11.3.2013. We had summoned the file of that case and find both the cases are almost similar. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view. We thus, dismiss this SLP on the ground of delay.
In 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1314 [State of Bihar and Others--Petitioner(s) V. Deo Kumar Singh and Others--Respondent(s)] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing an application seeking condonation of delay of 728 days, in paragraphs 2,3,4&5 of the judgment held as under:-
2. We are of the view that a clear signal has to sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct.10 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023
3. That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012(3) SCC 563].
4. We strongly deprecate the casual manner in which the Division Bench was approached and also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the petitioners must pay for the same.
5. We, thus, dismiss the special leave petition on delay and impost cost on the petitioners of Rs. 20,000/-to be recovered from the officers responsible for this delay and be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, within four weeks.
Certificate of recovery be filed in this court.
In (2020) 13 SCC 745 [Appellants: University of Delhi Vs. Respondent:
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.] relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing application seeking condonation of delay of 960 days in filing appeal, in paras 28, 29 & 30 of the judgment held as under:-
28. In the matter of condonation of delay and latches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. In that regard, rather than taking note of the hardship that would be caused to the respondent No.13 as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, what is necessary to be taken note is the manner in which the respondent No.11 DMRC has proceeded in the matter. The respondent No.11 DMRC is engaged in providing the public transport and for the said purpose the Government through policy decision has granted approval to generate resources through property development and in that regard the development as earlier indicated, is taken up. Pursuant thereto the respondent No.11 has received a sum of Rs.218.20 crores from respondent No.13 as far back as in the year 2008. The said amount as indicated is used for its projects providing metro rail service to the commuting public. In such circumstance, if at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.
29. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that not only the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the writ petition inter alia is hit by delay and latches but the decision of the Division Bench in dismissing the LPA on the ground of delay of 916 days is also justified and the orders do not call for interference.
30. Accordingly, the appeals being devoid of merits stand dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
In (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS--Petitioners Versus BHERULAL--Respondent] further relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court while 11 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 dismissing Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and others on the ground of delay/latches/limitation and unexplained/inordinate delay of 663 days and observing that delay cannot be condoned mechanically because the Govt. is a party and law of limitation binds everybody including the Government, in paras 6,7, 8 & 9 of the judgment held as under:-
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as ―certificate cases‖. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.
8. 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- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be 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 said period of time.
9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.
In LPA No. 107/2021, CM Nos. 2561/2012, 7968/2021,7969/2021 titled Union Territory of J&K and others--Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) V/s Abdul Rehman and Others -Respondent(s) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, A Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed after a laps of 1 years and 4 months.
12 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023In CDLSW No. 74/2018 titled State of J&K and others--
Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) V/s Anil Raina and others--Respondent(s) further relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, A Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed application for seeking delay of 406 days.
11. Ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent make the legal proposition abundantly clear, "that the Government Departments 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 delay should not be condoned mechanically, law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government, 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, if inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant/litigant approaches the court it would also be contrary to public interest". In view of the principle of law enunciated and ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent, the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicants/appellants is now not a good law, squarely distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand.
12. From the perusal of record available on the file, it is discernable, that applicants/appellants have demonstrated their non-seriousness in filing the present LPA having a delay of 275 days from the date of impugned judgment dated 11.02.2022 passed by the writ court. No plausible/cogent explanation has been tendered by applicants/appellants seeking the condonation of delay in filing the present LPA. It is not the case of appellant that the impugned judgment has been passed ex-parte and was not in their knowledge. On perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay, it becomes crystal clear, that the impugned judgment was passed by the writ court on 11.02.2022. The Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar vide office Communication No. Law- Lit9/524/2022-10 dated 28.11.2022 requested Mrs. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG for filing present appeal after a laps of 09 months. Even thereafter, the 13 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 present LPA has been filed on 11.01.2023 after total inordinate delay of 275 days from the date of impugned judgment. From the ratios of judgments (Supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondent, the legal position is no longer res-integra, that the Government Departments cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, delay cannot be condoned mechanically as law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government Departments. It is pertinent to mention here, that usual explanations for delay should not be accepted that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. Moreso, the Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. It is unambiguously reiterated here, that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Departments and if inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the litigants approach the court it would also be contrary to public interest. In the case in hand, on threadbare reading of the averments of the application seeking condonation of delay, no plausible/cogent reasons have been assigned. The word ―sufficient cause‖ has not been reasonably explained by the appellants, no sufficient grounds have been shown for condonation of the delay, moreso, by the expiry of period of limitation a vested right created to opposite party cannot be easily defeated.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm opinion, that applicants/appellants have miserably failed to satisfy this court the delay of 275 days in filing the present LPA (Letters Patent Appeal). The application for condonation of delay being legally incompetent, is disallowed, rejected and out rightly dismissed. Consequently, the LPA also stands dismissed on the ground of delay.
14. Disposed of accordingly alongwith all connected CMPs.
(MOHAN LAL) (TASHI RABSTAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
16.08.2023
Vijay
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? Yes