Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Hardik Rajeshkumar Shah on 20 July, 2023
Author: Ashutosh Shastri
Bench: Ashutosh Shastri
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 148 of 2023
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3007 of 2022
With
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3007 of 2022
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
HARDIK RAJESHKUMAR SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR VIJAY H
PATEL(7361) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 20/07/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI)
1. Aforesaid First Appeal is presented against judgment and order dated 30.1.2018 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No.6 of 2016 and since there appears to be delay in preferring the same, present application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 744 days as projected in the application and it appears from the record that on earlier point of time, very applicant has filed Civil Application No.1 of 2018 for the purpose of condonation of delay of 127 days which had occurred in preferring F/First Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined Appeal No.22838 of 2018 in which explanation which was tendered was found to be not satisfactory and as such said application came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2019, of-course with a liberty to applicant to prefer another application with relevant details and satisfactory explanation.
Since said order is also relevant to the present controversy, certain observations contained in the said order read as under:-
5. The only details / explanation which are mentioned by the Applicant in support of the request is found in paragraph 2 of the Application. The said paragraph 2 reads thus:
"It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the same was received by the department. That since the issues challenges decision of the authority and having retrospective effect on the dues and factor involved, the same had to be taken up at Legal Department and records and details were required to be called and deliberated. That upon synchronizing details, the same was given to the pleader, who had further called for details and particulars and records, moreso where there would be permanent effect on establishment and amount involved is huge, wherein time has taken and there is delay occurred, which is neither intentional, nor deliberate, more particularly in view of the in consequence attached the order, which will have a cascading effect over the city. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the aforesaid there is neither any willful, nor deliberate non- compliance of the orders and necessary approval had been sought, which came to be granted after collection of and synchronization and requisitions of the requests."
6. The said averments and details do not offer satisfactory explanation. The relevant details namely; the date of the judgment, when the application for certified copy and record was submitted, when the record was received, when subsequent steps for filing appeal were taken, what steps were taken, etc. are not mentioned in the Application.
Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined
7. The averments in the Application do not make out sufficient cause. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the details mentioned by the Applicant.
8. Under the circumstances, present Application is dismissed with liberty, to the Applicant, to file another appropriate Application with relevant details and satisfactory explanation. Rule is discharged.
2. After disposal of the said application on 31.1.2019, it appears that present application is presented on 27.1.2022, but registration of the application took place on 31.1.2023, as is reflecting from the record, and in that process, it appears that 744 days delay has taken place at the instance of the applicant.
3. For the purpose of seeking such condonation, explanation which has been put forth in the application we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
3. It is submitted that in the aforesaid proceedings, there was a delay of 127 days, wherein the Honourable Court 16.10.2018 in the allied Civil Application No. 1 of 2018. Copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-A. It is submitted that the said application was disposed with the liberty to file another application with particulars for the same by order dated 31.01.2019. Copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE B. It is respectfully submitted that the status of the matter at material time, reflects appeal pending.
Copy of the status report is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE C.
4. It is further pertinent to mention that the office of the applicant pleader was under renovation, which was completed by the office records were organized at the material time. It is submitted that the case papers were also not available and/or found in the office and at the same time even the concerned department were also not aware of the aforesaid order and were under the bona fide impression that the matter was pending. It is Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined submitted that however it was on or around 1nd week of September, 2021, during which on application was filed for refund, the issue was highlighted, during which the concerned tax department brought the issue with the legal department to inquire on status of the matter and thereupon the pleader was approached in penultimate week of September, 2021.
5. It is submitted that thereafter various endeavors made between September to the commence of Diwali Vacations by the office of pleader to trace and find the records, however there are no records found of the case papers. It is submitted that the concerned department was thereafter requested to verify the concerned records and the complete paper-book which was prepared with the trial court records within the department. It is submitted that however there was no records found and thereafter the entire case papers and records were required to be reconstructed for the purpose of filing of the appeal. It is submitted that upon complying with the requisitions, the same was supplied with the help of good offices of the pleader of the court where not only files, but documents including internal records of the authority were found. The records were received in January and the application was thereafter filed.
6. It is submitted that under the circumstance there is delay occurred, which is neither intentional, nor deliberate, more particularly in view of the in consequence attached the order, which will have a cascading effect over the city. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the aforesaid there is neither any willful, nor deliberate non-compliance of the orders and necessary approval had been sought, which came to be granted after collection of and synchronization and requisitions of the requests.
With aforesaid background, Civil Application was requested to be heard by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective sides.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Deep D. Vyas appearing on behalf of applicant has submitted that after seeking permission to file Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined appropriate fresh application with better explanation, as indicated in para 3 to 5, present application is submitted and as such there appears to be cogent circumstance which may persuade the Court to condone the delay and as such requested that keeping in mind such explanation, Hon'ble Court may kindly condone the delay.
5. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vyas that there is no deliberate or intentional delay which has occurred in filing the application. In fact, applicant remained under bonafide impression that earlier F/First Appeal No.22838 of 2018 was pending and date of disposal of Civil Application was 31.1.2019, as is reflecting from the status report at page 10 of the application and therefore, when applicant remained under impression that First Appeal as indicated above is stated to be pending, preferring of this application may not be construed as delayed or intentional belated and as such when proper circumstances have been projected before the Court, Hon'ble Court may kindly condone the delay. An attempt is made by learned advocate Mr. Vyas to persuade the Court to condone the delay by emphasizing the circumstances stated in para 4, 5 and Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined 6 of the application, as already incorporated herein-before, and then requested that lenient view may be taken. It has been submitted that it is a trite law that delay should be liberally construed especially when same is at the instance of a statutory body and reiterated the request to condone the delay.
6. As against this, learned senior advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar appearing on behalf of contesting opponent has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that in fact, if chronology of dates to be considered, delay is approximately of around 1428 days and not 744 days. Mr. Soparkar has submitted that be that as it may, even if it is to be treated as 744 days' delay, then explanation is not sufficient enough to condone the delay. In fact, on earlier occasion, when first application came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2019, Division Bench of this Court in categorical terms has stated that averments which are made for seeking delay of even 127 days were not found to be satisfactory and in specific terms, it has been stated that Coordinate Bench was not satisfied about such explanation. However, it appears that upon request of learned counsel, liberty was granted to project satisfactory Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined explanation and as such, according to the counsel, if delay is taken of about 127 days, explanation given for such delay are not to be considered since Division Bench had not found it satisfactory and as such, when application is to be seen, an attempt is made just to repeat the explanation which was given for seeking 127 days' delay occurred on earlier occasion and there was no other better explanation which persuaded the Court to condone the delay. According to Mr. Soparkar, explanation which is now tried to be given contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application is absolutely vague, without any basis and without any proper particulars and as such, simply because applicant is a Corporation, no lenient view would be taken. In fact, Corporation which is a statutory body is run by efficient employees and as such they are duty bound to better explain the circumstances unlike ordinary litigant and as such, projection which has been given is not at all satisfactory which may persuade the Court to condone the delay. By inviting the attention of the Court to the contents of affidavit-in-reply which has been filed for opposing the application, a request is made not to entertain the application and since with emphasize, Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined learned senior counsel has asserted in affidavit to oppose the delay, few paragraphs we deem it proper to quote hereunder since insisted upon:-
3) It is submitted that the Applicant has preferred the First Appeal u/s 411 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 passed in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 6 of 2016 by Ld. Small Causes Court No. 5, Ahmedabad. The said First Appeal ought to have been filed by the Applicant within one month from the date of decision i.e. on or before 01.03.2018. However, the same has been filed with a delay of 744 days without explaining sufficient cause for the huge delay. It is pertinent to state here that the actual delay in preferring the First Appeal is to the tune of 1428 days, however, the Ld. Registry of this Hon'ble Court has suo motu granted the benefit of COIVD-19 pandemic and excluded 684 days and therefore there is a delay of 744 days. The limitation period has expired in the present case in the year 2018 and therefore the benefit COVID 19. It is submitted that the Applicant has not claimed the exclusion of COVID - 19 pandemic in its delay application. Therefore, the benefit of COVID-19 pandemic cannot be extended to the Applicant.
Therefore, the delay application is liable to be rejected.
4) It is submitted that the Applicant has given two-fold explanation for delay of 744 days caused in preferring the First Appeal. The first explanation given by the Applicant is to the effect that the office of its pleader was under renovation and therefore the case papers were not available or found at the office. In humble submission of the deponent, the said explanation is contrary to the facts on record. The Applicant in the year 2018 had preferred F/First Appeal No. 22838 of 2018 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018, the same order which is impugned in the present First Appeal along with delay application praying for condonation of delay 127 days. Since no explanation was given for the delay caused in preferring the earlier First Appeal, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 in F/First Appeal No. 22838 of 2018 was pleased to reject the delay application. It is submitted that the Applicant in that delay application had not taken a plea that the case papers are not available with the pleader. Therefore, the reason that the case papers were not found at the office is wholly incorrect explanation, it is nothing but an afterthought and cannot be Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined believed. In view of this, the delay application is liable to be rejected.
5) It is submitted that the second explanation given by the Applicant is that the concerned department was not aware of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018. The said explanation is also complete contrary to the facts on record and cannot be believed. It is submitted that in the earlier delay application, the explanation given was that since the issued involved is a legal issue, the same was taken up by the legal department. Thus, the concerned department was well aware of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Ld. Small Causes Court. Thus, this explanation is also contradictory to the fact involved in the case and an afterthought. Therefore, the delay application is liable to be rejected.
5) The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there was such a long delay and there was no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party had proceeded before filing an appeal. In addition, in the instant facts not only the delay and laches in filing the appeal is contended on behalf of the Respondents seeking dismissal of the instant appeal but it was also contended that there was delay and laches in filing the writ petition itself at the first instance from which the present appeal had arisen. In that view, it would be necessary to advert to those aspects of the matter and notice the nature of consideration made in the writ petition as well as the letter patent appeal to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the High Court was justified.
6) It is submitted that the entire explanation as stated in the delay application, depicts that the applicant was not serious in challenging the impugned order. Further, the Applicant have already abandoned the cause and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. That apart when there was such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the way in which the Applicant has proceeded before filing the First Appeal. It is submitted that the only consideration for condonation of delay is reasonable explanation for the cause of delay. It is submitted the Applicant being a government entity cannot be given the special treatment with respect to the delay caused in preferring the present First Appeal without proper and sufficient explanation. Thus, the present delay application is liable to be rejected as no proper and sufficient explanation has been offered for the cause of Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined delay.
7) Without prejudice to the above, the para wise reply to the delay application is as under-
a) With respect to Para 1 of the application, the content of the same forms part of the record and therefore no specific reply is necessary.
b) With respect to Para 2 and 3 of the application, the content of the same are false and hence denied. Assuming without admitting that the sanction to prefer appeal was received by concerned officer on 26.02.2018 even otherwise the earlier appeal was filed on 19.07.2018. Thus, the conduct of the Applicant goes to show that the same is causal in nature and the Applicant was not serious in challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2018. Further, the present application is also liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. It is pertinent to note here that F/First Appeal No. 22383 of 2018 was preferred along with delay application praying for condonation of delay of 127 days. The said application came to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Civil Application No. 1 in F/First Appeal No. 22838 of 2018 on the ground that the Applicant has failed to offer satisfactory explanation for the cause of delay. So far as status of earlier First Appeal is concerned, the same ought to have been shown as disposed off with the dismissal of civil application. It is only due to inadvertence the same is show as pending.
Further, it is submitted that even otherwise after the delay application in the early round came to be rejected for want of proper explanation, the Applicant filed the present First Appeal only on 27.01.2022. It is submitted that the Applicant has failed to explain the period between 31.01.2019 till 27.01.2022. It is submitted that the present appeal was preferred only when an application for refund of tax was made before the concerned authority by the deponent. Thus, there is clear laches on the part of the Applicant.
It is submitted that so far as contention of merits are concerned, the deponent reserves the right to raise the said issue as and when required by the Hon'ble Court.
c) With respect to Para 4 of the application, the content of the same are false and hence denied. It is submitted that the explanation of the Applicant that the office of pleader was under
renovation cannot be believed as the same is nothing but an Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined afterthought. It is submitted that no specific period has been stated during which the office was under renovation. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as proper and sufficient explanation for such a huge delay caused in preferring the appeal. It is submitted that the contention that the case papers were not available or not found cannot be believed as the Applicant had already preferred F/First Appeal No. 22838 of 2018 on 19.07.2018. Thus, the said explanation is false and nothing but an afterthought. The contention that the concerned department was not aware of the order also cannot be believed.
d) With reference to para 5 of the application, the contents of the same are false and hence denied. It is submitted that the contention that the case record could not be found is nothing but an afterthought. It is submitted that in January, 2019 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant liberty to the Applicant to prefer fresh application, which came to be filed on 27.01.2022.
Thus, the said contention is complete contrary to the facts involved in the present case. In view of this, no proper and sufficient explanation for delay has been given by the present Applicant to allow the delay application.
e) With reference to Para 7 to 10, the contents of the same being formal in nature does not require specific reply. It is submitted that prejudice will be caused to the present deponent if the delay has been condoned that too without proper and sufficient explanation being offered by the Applicant.
And by referring to the aforesaid circumstance, learned senior counsel Mr. Soparkar has submitted that delay appears to be gross which may not be condoned, especially when no proper explanation is forthcoming.
7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Soparkar has further drawn the attention of the Court to few proposition of law of recent past on the issue of condonation of delay and by referring to certain decisions, it was vehemently opposed and requested not Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined to condone the delay. Following are the decisions which are pressed into service by learned counsel for the opponent:-
(1) In the case of Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 317 (2) In the case of Post Master General v. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 (3) In the case of Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 (4) In the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 (5) In the case of Sitaram Ramcharan v. M. N. Nagarshana reported in AIR (1960) SC 260
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, prima facie, we found that on earlier occasion, Coordinate Bench of this Court was not satisfied with the explanation which was given for delay of even 127 days and if chronology of events to be seen, here is a delay of approximately around 744 days (of-course as per the say of opponent, it is more than 1048 days). Be that as it may, explanation which has been reflecting from paragraphs contained in the application for delay, same appears to be vague, too general and bereft of any material. We are conscious about the fact that on account of either bureaucratic approach Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined or on account of movement of file in the statutory body, some delay might be taking place, but for that also, Corporation is under an obligation to explain the delay with proper material with proper sequence of events and with better explanation and this is more so when earlier Division Bench was not satisfied with explanation given for delay of 127 days and as such, when that be so, this second application at least ought to have been submitted with specific detailed explanation which is not reflecting. As a result of this, we found that explanation which is too general and vague, do not permit us to exercise our discretion keeping in view the settled proposition of law on the issue of condonation of delay.
9. Hon'ble the Apex Coourt in the case of Post Master General v. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, has held and observed in paragraphs 24, 26, 27 and 28 as under:-
"24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under:-
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."
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 Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined 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 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."
10. Yet another recent decision delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260 would also clearly indicate that if there is no satisfactory explanation, huge delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course. Relevant extract of the said decision we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
14. The High Court has observed that if the delay is condoned no prejudice will be caused to the appellant as the appeal would be heard on merits. The High Court has also observed that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents herein nor it suffers from want of due diligence.Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined However, from the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents herein - appellants before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal.
17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra), it is observed and held as under:− In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree−holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree−holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree−holder by lapse of time should not be light− heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan, (1890) J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is imputable to the appellant."
18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined discretion judiciously.
20. In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.
22. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi on 16 December, 2021 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/57092922/ 4 discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts.
11. Further, as has been held in a decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 that merely because applicant is a Government or a statutory body, no different yardstick to be applied for condonation of delay and long delay not to be condoned in a routine manner. We deem it proper to quote relevant observations contained in paragraphs Nos.59 and 60 of the said decision hereunder:-
"59. Likewise, merely because the government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. This was felicitously stated in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 ["Postmaster General"], as follows:
"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 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, 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, Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined 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 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
60. The decision in Postmaster General (supra) has been followed in the following subsequent judgments of this Court:
(i) State of Rajasthan v. Bal Kishan Mathur, (2014) 1 SCC 592 at paragraphs 8-8.2;
(ii) State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav, (2014) 2 SCC 422 at paragraphs 2-3;
(iii) State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 at paragraphs 11-13; and
(iv) State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 at paragraphs 3-4."
12. So, aforesaid salutary principles which are propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court on the issue of condonation of delay, we are of the clear opinion that circumstances, which are stated in the application are too vague and general, cannot be said to be satisfactory or sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of more than 700 days.
Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/148/2023 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined
13. Casual condonation of delay in itself would also at times create prejudice to the other side. Hence in consideration of overall circumstances, we deem it proper not to entertain the application.
14. Considering overall circumstances in mind, we are of the clear opinion that application is devoid of merit, bereft of any material and projecting no satisfactory explanation and hence we deem it proper to dismiss the same. Accordingly present Civil Application stands DISMISSED.
15. Since Civil Application for seeking of condonation of delay is dismissed, no orders need to be passed on First Appeal F/First Appeal No.3007 of 2022 and its connected Civil Application, if any, and registration thereof is REFUSED.
Sd/-
(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J) Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) OMKAR Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:13:05 IST 2023