Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Balwinder Singh And Ors on 8 December, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Raj Mohan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL MISC. No.4245 of 2014 in/and
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.2011 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 08, 2014
State of Haryana and others .....Appellants
versus
Balwinder Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.
Present : Mr.RKS Brar, Additional AG, Haryana.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
State of Haryana and its authorities in PWD, Water Services and Sanitation Department, have preferred this letters patent appeal against the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by learned Single Judge whereby notices issued by the appellants demanding water charges at the enhanced rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the respondent-consumers have been quashed.
Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 897 days has also been moved. It is averred in para No.3 of the application that after receiving copy of the judgment dated 24.04.2012, the office of Advocate General, Haryana, opined vide its letter dated 25.07.2012 that it was a fit case for filing appeal. Para No.4 of the application states that proposal to file appeal was sent to the Law Secretary-cum-Legal MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM No4245 of 2014 in/and LPA No.2011 of 2014 (O&M) [2] Remembrancer to Government of Haryana to issue the necessary sanction and that "the necessary sanction for filing the letters patent appeal against the above said judgment/order could not be pursued and the matter remained in abeyance". In the very next paragraph, then it is averred that delay of 897 days in filing the accompanying appeal is not intentional or willful.
It may, thus, be seen from the contents of the application that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for the inordinate delay running into years in filing the appeal. The accompanying affidavit is equally vague and evasive. It appears that the officers of the department deliberately sat over the matter and were reluctant to file the appeal but have belatedly chosen to file the accompanying appeal with a view to simply seek the seal of approval of this Court. Since there is no explanation at all for the prolonged delay, what to talk of a reasonable cause, we decline to condone the delay and dismiss the application.
Consequently, the accompanying appeal must also fail and is dismissed accordingly.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
December 08, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR
2014.12.23 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh