Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj And Ors vs Sai Darshan Hotels And Ors on 5 February, 2014
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
(1) D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.934/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3857/2003
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SAI DARSHAN HOTELS AND MOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
&
(2) D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.626/2013
IN
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.934/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3857/2003
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SAI DARSHAN HOTELS AND MOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
DATE:05.02.2014
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Akshat Choudhary, for the appellant.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, for the respondent No.1.
****
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE):
Heard Mr. Akshat Choudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
The instant application is one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1443 days in filing the accompanying appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2009, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3857/2003.
In substance, it has been averred in the application that after obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 06.08.2009, the Officer-in-Charge of the case had forwarded the file to the concerned administrative authorities for further action. While mentioning that meanwhile the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has also preferred an appeal against the same judgment and order and that the same has been admitted and an order for maintaining status-quo of the property involved has been passed on 22.11.2010, the applicant-State has contended that the belated appeal has been filed on the basis of revised legal opinion. According to the applicant, as the appeal filed by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has already been admitted, if the delay is condoned and the State appeal is admitted as well, it would not result in any prejudice to the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.1, in its reply, has asserted that the delay is deliberate and intentional and that there is no bonafide reason in preferring the appeal by the State. Contending that the applicant-State has been at all relevant times represented by the learned Additional Advocate General and was throughout aware of the judgment and order as well as the period of limitation prescribed by law, the answering respondent has stated that the application does not disclose any cause whatsoever to condone the enormous delay that has occurred. According to it, the delay ought not to be condoned as the applicant-State is guilty of willful inaction and laches.
Mr. Akshat Choudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant-State has argued that delay had occurred in view of the bureaucratic formalities to be essentially undertaken and thus, a liberal approach ought to be adopted. According to him, as the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has also preferred an appeal against the same judgment and order, which has since been admitted and interim order has also been passed therein, the delay ought to be condoned as the applicant-State has an arguable case on merits. To reinforce his pleas, Mr. Choudhary has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag And Another Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani And Others, (1996) 3 SCC 132.
Mr. Rastogi, per contra, has urged that the applicant-State having failed to explain the delay, the fact that the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has preferred an appeal against the same judgment and order, ipso facto, cannot be a ground to condone the same. According to him, not only the applicant-State has no case on merits in the attendant facts, having regard to the state of law of limitation, no extra indulgence ought to be extended to it, more particularly in absence of any explanation cognizable in law having been offered. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court Postmaster General And Others Vs. Living Media India Limited And Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.882/2014- State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr. Vs. Amar Nath Yadav (d/d 10.01.2014).
We have analyzed the pleaded facts as well as the arguments advanced.
In our comprehension, there is no explanation worth the name to explain the delay of 1443 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. The fact that the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has preferred an appeal against the same judgment and order, in which the State is a party respondent, in our view, does not absolve it of its obligation in law to file its appeal independently, if so advised, in time.
None of the decisions rendered in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag And Another Vs. Mst. Katiji And Others (supra) and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani And Others, (supra), propound a proposition that condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as contemplated, ought to be granted even if no explanation worth the name, is proferred by the party in default.
True it is that in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani And Others, (supra), their Lordships have observed that delay on the part of the State as a litigant on account of it being a impersonal machinery and the bureaucratic methodology with the incidences thereof is a matter of common knowledge and certain amount of latitude therefor is not impermissible to secure public interest, it does not signify as a corollary that any amount of delay ought to be routinely condoned even in absence of any cause being shown to explain the same. To reiterate, the applicant, apart from stating that after receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 06.08.2009, the file had been forwarded to the administrative level and that the appeal had been filed on a revised legal opinion, has cited no other reason to justify the delay. The averments are noticeably vague and wanting in essential particulars. Though, understandably the State being an impersonal machinery and saddled with unavoidable bureaucratic imperatives, having regard to the collective cause it represents, a relatively liberal and justice oriented approach ought to be adopted, in our view, these considerations cannot be dehors the attendant facts and circumstances and the explanation furnished.
The Apex Court in Postmaster General And Others Vs. Living Media India Limited And Another (supra), noticeably has struck a different note in the following terms:-
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, 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.
Their Lordships, in categorical terms, have observed that 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 and that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. It was observed as well that the law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. That the government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment, was underlined.
This view resonates in State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr. Vs. Amar Nath Yadav(supra).
On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the state of law, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the application does not disclose any acceptable cause for condonation of delay of 1443 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
The application (No.626/2013) is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal as well as the stay application and application I.A. No.35761/2013 are also dismissed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
/KKC/
Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
KAMLESH KUMAR P.A