Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukesh Kumar Kosta Judgement Given By: ... on 21 April, 2014
Writ Appeal No.1190/2012
21.4.2014
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the
State/appellants.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel, Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on admission.
This writ appeal by the State Government is directed against the order dated 12.12.2008, Annexure A-1, passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed the respondent's Writ Petition No.2777/2007(s).
By order under challenge the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to extend the benefit of time bound scheme of promotion/kramonnati to respondent and monetary benefit accruing thereof be also extended w.e.f. 1.4.2006 along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Since there is enormous and inordinate delay of 3 years 189 days in filing the appeal we shall examine whether there is any "sufficient cause" for the condonation of such a huge delay.
The application for condonation of delay filed by the State Government along with the affidavit of Officer-in-Charge of the case Shri S.R.Baghel, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Div.No.2, Jabalpur, reads as under:
The order has been passed on 12.12.2008, certified copy of which has been received on 16.3.2011.
The Executive Engineer has informed about the said order to the Secretary, PWD vide memo dated 29.9.2009.
The sanction for filing writ appeal has been obtained from the Hon'ble Advocate General on 26.9.2012. Thereafter OIC after collecting relevant record has immediately contacted office of Advocate General for preparation of writ appeal. The same has thereafter been prepared and filed without any further delay.
Under these circumstances delay caused in filing present writ appeal deserves to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court being procedural and bonafide.
The delay caused in filing writ appeal is bonafide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:
"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.
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 Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
In yet another recent decision, the Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629 has held that in cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.
In the case at hand, also although the order under challenge is dated 12.12.2008 application for its certified copy was made on 15.3.2011 i.e. after more than two and half years with no explanation whatsoever why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. Also, all the dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly show that there is delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates, there is no explanation as to why such delay has occurred. Though it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide, the fact remains that from day one the authorities concerned have not evinced diligence in pursuing the matter for filing the present writ appeal by taking appropriate steps. The State has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason to condone such a huge delay in filing the writ appeal required to be filed in the same High Court building and that too when the order under challenge was passed in the presence of Government Advocate.
Having regard to the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra) and Maniben Devraj Shah (supra) and the fact situation of the present case, we find no sufficient cause to condone the delay.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed on the ground of delay.
(AJIT SINGH) (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE JUDGE ss