Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Burhanuddin on 18 October, 2016
SA-288-2015
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs BURHANUDDIN)
18-10-2016
Shri S.H.Karanjawala, learned Govt.Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.4697/2015, an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. There is delay of 363 days.
The appellant has stated that in collection of necessary documents and getting necessary permission to file an appeal took time, the appellant could not file the appeal in time, therefore, the delay be condoned. The respondents have filed reply to the application for condonation of delay and stated that the appellants have not assigned sufficient reason for explaining the delay. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that only because the appellant is the State Government, the delay should not be condoned. The appellants have not shown sufficient reason to file appeal in time. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay be dismissed and consequently the appeal be also dismissed as time barred.
He has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of W.B., reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 1and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of State of M.P.and another Vs. Laxman S/o Hiralal deceased through LRs and others, reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 473.
The facts of the aforesaid cases are distinguishable with the facts of the present case.
On the contrary the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.Ayisumma, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2750, has held that the transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. Insistence upon explaining every day's delay would be improper and such adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. Whether the cause shown to delay is sufficient or not is to be seen by considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case appellant assigned sufficient reason for delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.4697/2015 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Let the matter be listed for admission after three weeks.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE