Patna High Court - Orders
The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited on 24 October, 2019
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1058 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4438 of 2009
======================================================
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affars and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of Inida, District officer, Muzaffarpur.
5. M/s Riga Sugar Company Limited, At and P.O. Riga, District-Sitamarhi,
through its President Sri Amar Sharma, Son of Late Major B.R. Sharma.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 999 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13205 of 2010
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation Of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi
Through The Manager
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District-Officer-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd. At and P.O. Sasa Musa, District-Gopalganj
through its Factory Manager, Jamaluddin Son of Late Nehaluddin.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public
Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New delhi-110001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
2/61
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1001 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4438 of 2009
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through the Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. M/s Riga Sugar Company Limited At and P.O. Riga, District- Sitamarhi,
through its President Shri Amar Sharma Son of Late Major B.R. Sharma.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public
Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1003 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4439 of 2009
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation Of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through the Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800 001.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited P.O. Vishnu Sugar Mills, P.S. and District-
Gopalganj, through its General Manager P.R.S. Panicker.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public
Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
3/61
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.493 of 2017
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation Of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through the Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of Inda, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd. At and P.O. Sasa Musa, District-
Gopalganj through its Factory Manager, Jamaluddin Son of Late
Nehaluddin.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public
Distribution), Government of India, Krishni Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.22 of 2018
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through the Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. M/s Riga Sugar Company Limited At and P.O. Riga, District Sitamarhi,
through its President Shri Amar Sharma Son of Late Major B.R. Sharma.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
4/61
Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1052 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.21 of 2018
======================================================
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through the Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of Inida, Regional Officer,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District-Office-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Vishnu Sugal Mills Limited P.O. Vishnu Sugar Mills, P.S. and District-
Gopalganj, through its General Manager P.R.S. Panicker.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1055 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.21 of 2018
======================================================
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lanne, New Delhi,
through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Muzaffarpur.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
5/61
5. M/s Vishnu Sugal Mills Ltd., P.O.- Vishnu Sugar Mills, District- Gopalganj,
through its General Manager, P.R.S. Panicker.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1057 of 2019
======================================================
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution)
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi
Through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager (Bihar) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
4. The Area Manager Food Corporation of India, District Office, Muzaffarpur
5. M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd At and P.O. Sasa Musa, District- Gopalganj
Through its Manager Jamaluddin, Son of Late Nehaluddin.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1059 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.493 of 2017
======================================================
The Union of India, through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Muzaffarpur.
5. M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd, At and P.O. Sasa Musa, District-
Gopalganj, through its Manager Jamaluddin, Son of Late Nehaluddin.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
6/61
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1060 of 2019
In
CIVIL REVIEW No.22 of 2018
======================================================
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through its Manager.
2. The General Manager (Bihar) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna
3. The Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
4. The Area Manager Food Corporation of India, District Office, Muzaffarpur
5. M/s Riga Sugar Company Limited At and P.O.-Riga, District-Sitamarhi,
through its Present Sri Amar Sharma, Son of Late Major B.R. Sharma
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1061 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4439 of 2009
======================================================
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Public distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution),
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi,
through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager (Bihar), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Patna.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Muzaffarpur.
5. M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. P.O.- Vishnu Sugar Mills, District- Gopalganj,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
7/61
through its General Manager, P.R.S. Panicker.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1058 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 999 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1001 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1003 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
8/61
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1052 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1055 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
9/61
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1057 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1059 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1060 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1061 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C.
Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the F.C.I. : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate
Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
For Private Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019
10/61
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY)
7 24-10-2019I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1058 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 999 of 2019) I.A. No.01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1001 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No.1003 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1048 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1049 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No.1052 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1055 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1057 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No.1059 of 2019) I.A. No.01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1060 of 2019) I.A. No. 01 of 2019 (L.P.A. No. 1061 of 2019) Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. All these Letters Patent Appeals are arising from the common order passed in different writ petitions as well as review applications and in all the appeals limitation petitions have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter mentioned as "the F.C.I.") filed the appeals against the judgment and order Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 11/61 passed in three writ petitions as well as against the orders passed in the three review applications. Similarly, the Union of India has also filed appeals against the order passed in the three writ petitions as well as against the order passed in three review applications. Altogether 12 appeals have been filed by the Food Corporation of India as well as the Union of India.
3. In all the cases, the matter relates to refund of amount of supply of levy sugar for the period 1995-96, which has been turned down by the Food Corporation of India with the simple excuse that they would be taken up after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the F.C.I. against the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2002.
4. While considering the petitions for condonation of delay, we do not feel it appropriate to deliberate the merit of the cases, but only confining with the issue of condonation of delay in filing different appeals as six appeals are arising from the common order passed in the writ petitions, in which there is a long delay in filing the appeals and another set of six appeals are arising from the order passed in the review applications, their delay is quite different than to the appeals arising from the common order passed in the writ petitions. As the common order is under challenge in all the cases, we feel it necessary to Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 12/61 deal with the facts of these cases separately for convenience of the parties as well as for the Court.
5. C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009 (M/S. Riga Sugar Company Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors.), C.W.J.C. No.4439 of 2009 (M/S. Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2010 (M/S. Sasa Musa Sugar Works Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.) were heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 27.02.2017. In all the three cases, review applications were filed by the Food Corporation of India in the following manner:-
Civil Review No. 22 of 2018 was filed on 17.01.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009, Civil Review No. 21 of 2018 was filed on 17.01.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 4439 of 2010 and Civil Review No. 493 of 2017 was filed on 14.01.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2010. All the Civil Review Applications were filed by the Food Corporation of India, making prayer to review the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in above three writ petitions and this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 disposed of all the review applications and the judgment of the same was uploaded on the website on 20.05.2019.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 13/61
6. L.P.A. No.1001 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009, L.P.A. No. 999 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13205 of 2010 and L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2019 is also arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4439 of 2009. All these L.P.As have been filed on 17.08.2019 by the Food Corporation of India.
7. Similarly, L.P.A. No. 1052 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review no. 21 of 2018, L.P.A. No.1049 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review No. 22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 1048 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review no. 493 of 2017. All these L.P.As have been filed on 23.08.2019 by the Food Corporation of India against the order passed in civil review applications.
8. L.P.A. No. 1055 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review No. 21 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 1057 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2010, L.P.A. No. 1058 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4438 of 2009, L.P.A. No. Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 14/61 1059 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review no. 493 of 2017, L.P.A. No. 1060 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review No. 22 of 2018, L.P.A. No. 1061 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4439 of 2009. All these six appeals have been filed by the Union on India on 26.08.2019 against the order passed in the writ petitions as well as in review applications.
9. It is required to be mentioned here that the Union of India did not file any review application though the Union of India having been made party in opposition in the writ petitions and learned counsel for the Union of India has actively participated in the proceeding. During the hearing of the review applications, the Union of India has filed an application for transposition as petitioner but, the said application for transposition has not been disposed of and the learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that he participated and argued in the proceeding of the review applications.
10. There is a delay of about 879 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeals by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed in writ petitions and there is a delay of about 90 days in filing the appeals against the order passed in Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 15/61 the review applications. There are different period of delay, as has been stated hereinabove, in filing the appeals from the writs compared to filing the review applications.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay in filing the appeals arising from the common order passed in the three writ petitions has happened on account of fact that review applications were filed against the order passed in the writ petitions and the said review applications have been dismissed on merit and as such, the period of pendency of the review applications be taken into consideration in condonation of delay in filing the appeals from the order of the writ petitions.
12. The delay of about 879 days in filing the appeals has been explained by the Union of India in the Limitation Petition. It has been stated that pursuant to passing of the impugned order dated 27.02.2017, the Union of India sought legal opinion and after obtaining legal opinion, a decision was taken to challenge the impugned order, however, in the meantime, the Union of India came to know that Food Corporation of India has filed Civil Review No.22 of 2018, before the learned Single Judge, for reviewing the order dated 27.02.2017 in C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009. The Union of India, which was made a party respondent, appeared in the Civil Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 16/61 Review proceeding and supported the claim of the Food Corporation of India. All the review applications were heard together and vide order dated 26.04.2019, all the review applications were dismissed. Upon dismissal of the aforesaid review applications, the Union of India again sought legal opinion on 31.05.2019 from the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who gave his legal opinion on 19.06.2019 and thereafter certified copy of the impugned order was received in the Ministry on 26.06.2019 and thereafter on 08.07.2019, the Ministry communicated its decision to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for filing appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the Union of India on 26.08.2019.
13. The Food Corporation of India in its petition for condonation of delay has explained the delay of 90 days in filing the appeals in the manner that the order of this Court passed in Civil Review was communicated to the Food Corporation of India in May, 2019 and being technical in nature it was referred for opinion to the counsel for the F.C.I. and transmitted to the Ministry. Whereafter, the Ministry of Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, New Delhi, referred the matter for opinion to learned Additional Solicitor General of Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 17/61 India. After receipt of the opinion, a decision was taken by the Ministry for preferring an L.P.A. and instruction was also given to the Head Office of the Food Corporation of India to prefer L.P.As against the aforesaid impugned orders. On receipt of the said communication, instruction was sent to the leaned counsel for the F.C.I. for preparation of the L.P.A. and for which necessary documents and records were called for along with the order passed by this Court. But, due to intervening summer vacation the matter could not be taken up and upon re-opening the matter was examined by the learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India and whereafter a draft L.P.A. was prepared in the 3rd week of August, 2019. The aforesaid draft was sent for necessary vetting by the Head office of the F.C.I. and on receipt of due approval the same has been filed before this Court.
14. Learned counsel for the Union of India as well as the Food Corporation of India have submitted that in the present Letters Patent Appeals vital issue of refund of amount arising on the sugar levy is under consideration and if the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not be allowed to be challenged, it will amount to opening a Pandora's box as other Sugar Companies will approach this Court and make a similar prayer Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 18/61 for refund of the amount, which has been adjusted or recovered by the Union of India from different Sugar Companies and submitted that in the present appeals, substantial question of law is under consideration and as such, this Court must exercise the discretion in favour of appellants in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the different L.P.As. against the order passed in the writ petitions and the order passed in the review applications.
15. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent side submitted that there is a long delay of 879 days in filing the appeals and the Union of India has come forward hardly with any explanation for condonation of delay. There must be a reasonable and proper explanation for condonation of such a long delay, if petitions bereft of any reasoning and explanation in filing the appeals, in such circumstance, the Court would refuse to condone the delay in filing the writ petitions.
16. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the other side has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 3 S.C.C. 563.
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh through Executive Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 19/61 Engineer and Another vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422.
(iii) Union of India and Others vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited and Another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 102.
(iv) Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and Ors. reported in 2014(1)
PLJR 290 (S.C.).
17. He further submits that in all the decisions, the Court has explained in what manner and in what circumstance, the Court would exercise the discretion in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the application or appeal by the parties.
18. By making the above submissions, learned counsel for the other side submits that there is a huge delay in filing these appeals, so the Court should refuse to entertain the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
19. In course of argument, liberty was granted to the Union of India as well as the F.C.I. to file their respective supplementary affidavits, further explaining the delay in filing Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 20/61 the appeals.
20. In pursuance thereof, the Union of India has filed Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2019 and tried to explain the delay of 2 years and 130 days in filing the appeals. It has been stated that after the passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge, the Food Corporation of India informed the Union of India about the said order vide letter dated
17.07.2017, whereupon the Union of India requested the Food Corporation of India to provide all the details of the case for taking decision in the matter. In turn, the Food Corporation of India vide letter dated 29.08.2017 informed the Union of India regarding the details of the case. Again the Union of India requested the Food Corporation of India through e-mail dated 30.08.2017 to provide all necessary details and documents, thereafter a reminder notice was also sent on 06.09.2017 through e-mail for the same. Whereupon, the Officer, dealing with the matter, placed the matter before the Legal Department on 19.09.2017, seeking opinion regarding filing the Special Leave to Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Legal Department vide letter dated 25.09.2017 requested to supply the documents and clarification from the Food Corporation of India about the filing of the Special Leave Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 21/61 Petition, whereafter the Food Corporation of India sent e-mail, seeking legal opinion from the Senior Advocate for filing a Caveat petition in the matter and the Union of India vide e-mail dated 26.09.2017, requested the Food Corporation of India to file Caveat petition in the Patna High Court. The Union of India received a letter from the Food Corporation of India on 11.10.2017 informing that learned Senior Advocate of Patna High Court has advised to file a review application in the matter. The Union of India, accordingly, informed the Food Corporation of India that it may take some time to take a final decision and to take proper steps in the matter as the concerned file was pending for opinion before the Legal Department. The Union of India requested the Food Corporation of India to file an application before this Court, seeking time till 30.11.2017 and simultaneously reminder was sent to the Legal Department, seeking clarification about filing of the S.L.P. The Union of India on 16.10.2017 directed the Food Corporation of India to file a review application. In turn, the Food Corporation of India informed the Union of India on 24.10.2017 that they have requested the learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India to prepare a draft of review application for filing of the same. The Legal Department sent its file on 25.10.2017 along with a Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 22/61 draft of S.L.P. for vetting, which was returned for obtaining a fresh legal opinion in view of the fact that Food Corporation of India was going to file a review application in the matter. However, the Legal Department forwarded the file for vetting the draft S.L.P. On 08.11.2017, the Legal Department sent back the file to the Union of India. Accordingly, the Union of India requested the Food Corporation of India vide e-mail dated 09.11.2017 to file review application against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In turn, the Food Corporation of India vide e-mail dated 20.11.2017 sent the revised draft to the Union of India for perusal and in turn, the Union of India directed the Food Corporation of India to immediately file the review application. Thereafter, the Food Corporation of India vide mail dated 11.12.2017 informed the Union of India to file review application on 30.11.2017 itself. The Union of India requested through e-mail to implead the Union of India as petitioner in the review application. In the meantime, a contempt application was filed by the private respondent for non-compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge. In turn, the Food Corporation of India vide letter dated 08.02.2018, sent the draft show-cause in the aforesaid contempt petition for vetting followed by reminder notice dated 12.02.2018. The Food Corporation of India vide Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 23/61 letter dated 13.02.2018, requested the Union of India to file a separate review application against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The show-cause was filed on 07.03.2018 in contempt petition by the Union of India. Thereafter, the Food Corporation of India forwarded the review application which was filed by them. On 07.03.2018, an interlocutory application was filed in Civil Review No. 21 of 2018 for transposing the Union of India as party petitioner. Accordingly, they pursued the review application, which was ultimately dismissed on 26.04.2019 and the order was uploaded on 20.05.2019. After examining the order passed in the writ petitions as well as review applications, the Assistant Solicitor General, Patna High Court, was asked to give his legal opinion. Accordingly, the legal opinion dated 19.06.2019 along with certified copy of the orders passed in writ petitions as well as review application was communicated to the Union of India, which was received on 26.06.2019. Accordingly, a decision was taken to challenge the orders passed in the writ petitions as well as in the review applications and the Food Corporation of India was requested to provide all documents pertaining to the writ proceeding as well as the review proceeding for preparation of L.P.As. Thereafter, on 19.08.2019 a draft L.P.A. in Sasa Musa case was received by Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 24/61 the Union of India, authorizing the Under Secretary (SPF) to swear the affidavits and also to take necessary steps regarding filing of the L.P.As. Hence, the L.P.As. have been filed against the order of the writ applications as well as the review applications.
21. In support of the submission for condonation of delay, the Union of India has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangarma More and Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387 as also the order passed in L.P.A. No. 418 of 2018 (The Union of India vs. Arjun Yadav and Ors.), in which the Division Bench of this Court has condoned the delay of 3 years and 285 days and heard the case on merit and finally decided the same.
22. The Food Corporation of India, appellant, has also filed supplementary affidavit giving the explanation for the delay in filing the appeals against the order passed in the original writ petitions and the review applications. In paragraph no.11 they have explained the delay in filing the review applications, which the learned single Judge has considered on its merit and decided the same. So far the delay of about 3 months in filing the L.P.As is concerned, the same has been explained in the manner that the three review applications were Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 25/61 disposed of on 26.04.2019 and the order was uploaded on 20.05.2019. Whereafter, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food sought opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India on 31.05.2019. The Additional Solicitor General of India has recorded his opinion and communicated the same on 19.06.2019, whereafter, on 26.06.2019, the opinion of Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel of Food Corporation of India was sought regarding filing of the Letters Patent Appeals. The Food Corporation of India vide letter dated 02.07.2019 communicated to the Regional Office of Patna, for taking steps in filing the L.P.As. On 04.07.2019, the Regional Office, Patna, sent the detail of facts to the Headquarter, New Delhi. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food wrote a letter dated 08.07.2019 to the C.M.D. Headquarter, Food Corporation of India for filing separate Letters Patent Appeals against both the orders passed in the writ petitions and Review Applications and the Ministry of Consumers Affairs and Food vide letter dated 05.08.2019 asked the C.M.D., Headquarter, Food Corporation of India to furnish the entire documents and records for preparing Letters Patent Appeals by the Additional Solicitor General of India. In turn, the Food Corporation of India Regional Office, Patna, vide letter dated 09.08.2019 sent the draft L.P.As., stay Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 26/61 and limitation petitions to the learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India through the Executive Director (Sales), Food Corporation of India, Headquarter, New Delhi, for approval. The Regional Office, Patna, Food Corporation of India, wrote a letter dated 13.08.2019 to the General Manager (Law), Food Corporation of India, Headquarter, seeking approval of the draft L.P.As. which was communicated earlier for its approval from the Ministry. In turn, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food, advised the Food Corporation of India, for filing L.P.As and implead the Union of India as co- appellant instead of proforma respondent. On 14.08.2019, a telephonic discussion was held and decision was arrived at that Food Corporation of India despite being part of Union of India, is a separate legal entity, hence, both i.e. Union of India as well as Food Corporation of India will have to file their respective separate Letters Patent Appeals against the orders passed in the writ petitions as well as in the review application and on 17.08.2019 after receiving the green signal from the Headquarter, the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Patna, filed three Letters Patent Appeals on 17.08.2019 against the order passed in the writ petitions and three Letters Patent Appeals filed on 23.08.2019 against the order passed in Review Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 27/61 Applications. In this manner, they have explained the delay in filing the appeals.
23. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. reported in 2000(3) PLJR(SC) 81, (paragraph nos. 4, 11, 13 and 14) and in the case of Ramnath sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., reported in 2002 (3) PLJR (SC), 247, (para nos. 9, 10, 11 and
12). He submits that the Food Corporation of India has explained the delay that in a bona fide manner they have been pursuing the matter to file Letters Patent Appeals against both, the orders passed in the writ petitions and the Review Applications. Certainly time has been consumed in finally coming to the conclusion on account of fact that administrative decision was taken at different levels, but the steps which have been taken does not suffer from any mala fide but, it has been pursued in a completely bona fide manner.
24. In reply, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the appellants have failed to explain the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals and which suffers from mala fide on account of lack of proper explanation. It has been stated Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 28/61 that there is no explanation for the period from 27.02.2017 to 17.07.2019 i.e. 2 years and 5 months and during that period what they were doing has not been explained by the Union of India. As the Union of India itself was a party to the proceeding, there was no question of asking for the documents from the Food Corporation of India. Asking to transfer the record cannot be said to be bona fide explanation when the records itself were with the Union of India. It has further been submitted that the explanation of the Union of India is not bona fide and also the facts which have been brought by way of explanation is completely vague, not in specific terms, as to from whom they have sought clarification and from whom they sought opinion, so the explanation is completely eye-wash and without reason.
25. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has to decide as to whether in the present cases we should exercise the discretion for condonation of delay or not?. For arriving to the correct conclusion, it will be desirable to look into the precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the matters.
26. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 361, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the parameters for Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 29/61 consideration of delay and held that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. The discretion has been conferred on the Court in what manner judicial power and discretion in the matter of condonation of delay is to be exercised to advance substantial justice. While exercising the discretion, the party is to show sufficient cause not only as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation prescribed. That may inevitably mean that the party would have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but, to explain the delay in day-to-day basis. In other words, in showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the party may be asked to explain the delay for the whole period covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Court. If sufficient cause is not shown nothing further has to be looked into. The application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. It will be useful to quote relevant portion of paragraph nos. 7, 8, and 12 of the said judgment, which are as follows:-
"7. ...The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 30/61 delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice....
8. ...That may inevitably mean that the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay the party may be called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered by the period between the last day prescribed for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed. To hold that the expression "within such period" means during such period would in our opinion be repugnant in the context....
12. ...The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 31/61 for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it..."
27. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantna and Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353, the Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act be liberally construed. Each day delay has to be explained, does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. If each day delay has to be explained why not every hour delay and the doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense in pragmatic manner.
28. Identical issue came for consideration in the case of State of West Bangal vs. Administrator Hawarah Municipality and Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 749 in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme court Court has held that same set of principle will applicable while exercising the discretion in condonation of delay, either it is Government or a private body, unless the statute itself makes any distinction. It has further been held that sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction or Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 32/61 want of bona fide is imputable to a party. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 27 and 30 of the said judgment, which read as under:-
"27. Mr. D. Mukerji learned counsel for the first respondent is certainly well-founded in his contention that the expression "sufficient cause"
cannot be construed too liberally, merely because the party in default is the Government. It is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable are the same, unless the Statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gainsaid that the same consideration that will be shown by courts to a private party when he claims the protection of S. 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the State.
30. From the above observations it is clear that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party."
29. In the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and another (supra), which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed the issue in the following manner:-
"Whether the office of the Chief Postmaster General has shown sufficient cause for condoning Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 33/61 the delay of 427 days in filing S.L.Ps. before this Court."
30. In that case on 14.10.2005, the Manager (Circulation), Living Media India Limited submitted an application to the Postal Department, seeking permission to post December, 2005 issue of Reader's Digest magazine containing the advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in the form of booklet with Calendar for the year 2006 at concessional rates at New Delhi. Vide letter dated 08.11.2005, the Postal Department denied the grant of permission for mailing the said issue at concessional rates on the ground that the booklet containing advertisement with calendar is neither a supplement nor a part and parcel of the publication. On 17.11.2005, the Director (Publishing), Living Media India, once again submitted an application, seeking the same permission and this was also denied by the Postal Department by letter dated 21.11.2005. The Postal Department also refused to grant concessional rate of postage to post the issue dated 26.12.2005 of "India Today"
magazine containing a booklet of Amway India Enterprises titled "Amway" vide their letters dated 18.02.2006 and 17.03.2006 stating that the said magazine was also not entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate available to registered Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 34/61 newspapers. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Postal Department, writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Living Media India Limited, against which appeal was filed and both were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was a delay of 427 days in filing the S.L.P. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the explanation offered by the Postal Department in paragraph no.20 and took the view that in the matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide, a liberal consideration has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has held that 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities 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 Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 35/61 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. It has further been held that the law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few and ultimately refused to condone the delay. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:-
"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 Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 36/61 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."
31. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amar Nath Yadav (supra), there was a delay of 481 days in filing the Special Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the relevant paragraph of the decision rendered in the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and another (supra) and refused to condone the delay.
32. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. (supra), there was a delay of 2449 days. In this case, Esha Bhattacharjee, who was appointed as teacher, filed a writ petition seeking approval of her appointment. Notices were given but, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 37/61 management did not turn up. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order that during the pendency of the application the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Bengali in Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (HS) at Abhoynagar in the district of Howrah shall not be disturbed until further orders. When the order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed and the information was given to the Managing Committee of the School, but they did not pay any heed. Ultimately, in order to comply the order, directed the District Inspector of Schools to ensure the due compliance of the order and direction of the Court. That apart, a direction was issued that the concerned police authority should see to it that the Secretary and the teacher-in-charge of the concerned school implement the order in allowing the petitioner to join her duties. After the said order, she was allowed to join but, not allowed to put her signature on daily attendance register, nor allotted any work nor paid her salary. Against the said action, Esha Bhattacharjee filed a contempt petition and the Court directed for personal presence of the Secretary and teacher-in-charge of the school. In that event, the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the school preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay and eventually, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 38/61 Division Bench condoned the delay and passed the interim order of stay, which compelled Esha Bhattacharjee to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the manner the delay was condoned and interim order was passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the previous judgments culled out the final view in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 and held that the Division Bench while dealing with the application for condonation of delay did not take certain essential fact into consideration about the legal tenability of the interim order in a matter of appointment and approval of a teacher, and wrongly condoned the delay without considering the fact that the appeal was filed after a long delay, without noticing the fact that the writ petition was pending before the Single Judge, and it does not require Solomon's wisdom to perceive that the delay was colossal. In the application for condonation of delay the appellant before the High Court had stated about the circumstances in which the order came to be passed by the learned single Judge. In paragraph no.21 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has catalogued the events in the matter of passing the order of the Single Judge and that the same was communicated. The order of the Division Bench was set aside on the ground that the Division Bench did not exercise its Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 39/61 discretion fairly and properly. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment, in which the Court has outlined the guidelines while considering the condonation of delay.
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:-
(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 40/61 significant and relevant fact.
(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.
(x) If the explanation offered is concocted Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 41/61 or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: -
(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 42/61 manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
33. In paragraph no.21 the Court has mentioned the reasons for interference with the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-
"21. Barring the aforesaid, most of the discussion pertains to the merits of the case. We are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has misdirected itself by not considering certain facts, namely, (a) that the notice of the writ petition was served on the earlier managing committee; (b) that the earlier committee had appeared in the writ court and was aware of the proceedings and the order; (c) that the District Inspector of schools had communicated to the managing committee to comply with the order of the learned single Judge; (d) that the earlier Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 43/61 managing committee had undertaken before the learned single Judge to comply with the order;
(e) that the new managing committee had taken over charge from the earlier managing committee; (f) that nothing has been indicated in the affidavit that under what circumstances the new managing committee, despite taking over charge, was not aware of the pending litigation or for that matter the communication from the District Inspector; (g) that the writ court was still in seisin of the matter and no final verdict had come and hence, it would not be a case where there will be failure of justice if the appeal against the interim order is not entertained on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the final order was subject to assail in appeal; (h) that the managing committee had exhibited gross negligence and, in any way, recklessness; (i) that the conduct and attitude of the members of the committee before the writ court deserved to be decried since they should not have taken recourse to maladroit effort in complying with the order of the court; and (j) and that it was obvious that the managing committee was really taking resort to dilatory tactics by not seeking necessitous legal remedy in quite promptitude."
34. In paragraph no. 22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted the relevant portion of judgment rendered in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 44/61 S.C. 3222 and held that the High Court has failed to keep itself alive to the concept of exercise of judicial discretion that is governed by rules of reason and justice. It will be useful to quote relevant portion of paragraph no. 22 and entire portion of paragraph no.23 of the said judgment, which are as follows:-
22. ... It should have kept itself alive to the following passage from N. Balakrishnan (supra): -
"The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit.
During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 45/61 legislatively fixed period of time."
We have painfully re-stated the same.
23. Ex consequenti, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench condoning delay is set aside. As a result of such extinction the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court shall also stand dismissed. The learned single Judge is requested to dispose of Writ Petition No. 6124(W) of 2003 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months as the lis involved is not likely to consume much time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
35. The judgment rendered in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited and other (supra), cited by learned counsel for the other side relates to very old judgment wherein the Court has refused to condone the delay on the ground that there is no cogent and plausible explanation for filing the Special Leave Petition and refused to exercise the discretion in the matter of condonation of delay.
36. The judgment rendered in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Union of India, was a case where a partition suit was filed and preliminary decree was passed ex parte. Whereafter, an application under Order IX Rule Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 46/61 13 CPC was filed, but at the appellate stage, the same was withdrawn and later on, an appeal was filed against the ex parte decree. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal came for consideration before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court had taken a view that period spent in pursuing the remedy by filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC will not come in the aid for condonation of delay. Ultimately, matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay and while passing the order has set out the guidelines that the word "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona fide could be imputable to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if these conditions are absent, it should be kept in mind that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. It means that that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 47/61 newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).
37. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of the said judgment, which read as under:-
"15. It is a fairly well-settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bonafide could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under:-
"6. The expression "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly observed that a liberal approach needs to Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 48/61 be adopted in such matters so that substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay."
16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court held as under:-
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 49/61 see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
17. As pointed out earlier, an appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay."
38. In the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India, the issue related to grant of seniority as it was claimed that the seniority should be counted from the date of officiating and not from the date of substantive promotion. The issue reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but there was a huge delay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay having held that refusing to the condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 50/61 a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. If substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. If the delay has not occasioned on account of deliberate act or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. It has further been held that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
39. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 11 to 14 of the said judgment, which read as under:-
"11. Power to condone the delay in approaching the court has been conferred upon the courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. This Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.[1987 (2) SCR 387] held that the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 51/61 the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that:
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 52/61 benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
12. After referring to the various judgments reported in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Shanti Misra [1975 (2) SCC 840], Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram [AIR 1917 PC 156], Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [1969 (1) SCR 1006], Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [1979 (4) SCC 365], Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [1969 (2) SCC 770], State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe [1981 Supp SCC 72], Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath[1982 (3) SCC 366 O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh [1984 (4) SCC 66], Collector, Land Acquisition v.
Katiji [1987 (2) SCC 107], Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra [1987 Supp. SCC 339], G. Ramegowda, Major v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer [1988 (2) SCC 142], Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India[1991 (1) SCC 174], Binod Bihar Singh v. Union of India [1993 (1) SCC 572], Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993 Supp (1) SCC 487], Ram Kishan v. U.P. SRTC [1994 Supp (2) SCC 507] and Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995 Supp (1) SCC 37; this Court in State of Haryana v.
Chandra Mani & Ors. [1996 (3) SCC 132] held:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 53/61 "It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court be it by private party or the State are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-
making, file pushing, and passing-on-the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red- tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 54/61 certain amount of altitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression 'sufficient cause' should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented process approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient case for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of pragmatic approach in justice oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis- à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision to give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file the appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 55/61 for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants."
To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V.Ayisumma [1996 (10) SCC 634].
13. In Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab [1995 (6) SCC 614] this Court under the peculiar circumstances of the case condoned the delay in approaching this Court of about 31. In N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123] this Court held that the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack malafides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 56/61 consideration to the suitor. In this context it was observed:
"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit.
Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court."
14. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 57/61 case, as noticed earlier and with the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioners which has persuaded us to condone the delay in filing the petitions. Dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of limitation would not, in any way, advance the interests of justice but admittedly, result in failure of justice as the impugned judgments are likely to affect not only the parties before us, but hundreds of other persons who are stated to be senior than the respondents. The technicalities of law cannot prevent us from doing substantial justice and undoing the illegalities perpetuated on the basis of the impugned judgments. However, while deciding the petitions, the reliefs in the case can appropriately be moulded which may not amount to unsettle the settled rights of the parties on the basis of judicial pronouncements made by the courts regarding which the State is shown to have been careless and negligent. It is paramount consideration of this Court to safeguard the interests of all the litigants and persons serving the Police Department of the State of Bihar by ensuring the security of the tenure and non disturbance of accrual of rights upon them under the prevalent law and the rules made in that behalf. Accordingly delay in filing the petitions is condoned."
40. In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 58/61 and Ors. vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India, the question of condonation of delay came for consideration and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the meaning of sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers thereunder and ultimately held that Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the Courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 59/61 a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.
41. It will be relevant to quote paragraph no.11 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"11. Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 60/61 valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by defaulter or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way"
42. From the facts as stated above, the Union of India has explained the delay and stated that it participated in the writ proceeding as well as review proceeding and meticulously provided and explained the delay in filing the Letters Patent appeals. During the proceeding, the Union of India had filed an application for transposition, but the same was not allowed. Similarly, the delay caused in filing the appeal by the Food Corporation of India is 60 days and the impugned order in review application was pronounced on the last working day before summer vacation of 2019 and after 30 days of the opening the appeals have been filed and the delay in filing the appeals have been explained both by the Food Corporation of Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 61/61 India as well as the Union of India. Hence, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown as it is not suffering from any gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide on the part of the appellants. The primary duty is to see that on technical ground, an arguable case should not be dismissed. Looking at the entirety of the facts, we are of the view that these are fit cases where the delay should be condoned.
43. In such view of the matter, the delay in filing these Letters Patent Appeals are condoned. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications are allowed.
The main cases will be heard on merit.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) ( Partha Sarthy, J) pawan/-
U