Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Vasudev Sharma on 15 April, 2005
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed this appeal against the order made by the learned single Judge in CW 1087/2003 on 22.9.2003. There is gross delay in preferring an appeal of 344 days and hence CM 5342/05 is filed. Even thereafter there is gross delay in re-filing of 107 days and therefore CM 5343/05 is filed. In application for condensation of delay in paragraph 2 it is stated as under:
"2. That since the certified copy of the order was not made available to the Appellant by the counsel conducting the case below, therefore, after waiting for some time the appellant applied for obtaining the copy of the certified copy of the order which was made available to the Appellant on 17.2.2005 and 14.2.2005 respectively. Thereafter the concerned officer was called and the LPA could be re-filed on 7.3.2005."
2. Except this there are no other averments. In application for re-filing in paragraph 3 it is stated as under:
"3. The Appellant received the Certified Copy of the Review filed by it sometime in May 2004 After receiving the said order the Appellant sent the files for obtaining legal opinion and approval for filing the Letters Patent Appeal sometime in the end of May 2004 After seeking legal opinion the file was sent for approval by the appropriate authority of the applicants, which was received sometime in the month of July 2004"
3. Even according to these averments approval was received sometime in the month of July 2004 even then immediately appeal was not preferred. Appeal was filed on 30th November, 2004 and thereafter time is taken for removal of the office objections and now is listed before the court. These indicate how the Corporation has respect for law of limitation and for the advocates. In paragraph 2 of the application for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that certified copy of the order was not made available to the appellant by the counsel conducting the case. Is it suggested by the Corporation that advocate was requested to apply for the certified copy and he did not supply the copy? Is it suggested that the amount of cost for supply of certified copy was paid to the appellant and still he did not supply the same? Such vague averments are required to be deprecated when an application is preferred in the High Court. It appears that these authorities have taken it for granted that irrespective of number of days of delay or reasons court is bound to condone the delay. We find no satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay.
4. That apart, considering the fact that this is a case of Corporation, we have examined the matter and we find that the Corporation was taking work from the respondent as that of a typist, certificate was given by the Corporation itself. He has also passed the test for typist and now the Corporation is not willing to pay him the salary of a typist. In our opinion learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. Appeal and applications stand dismissed.