Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vasant Balwant Karandikar on 21 July, 2014
1
Writ Appeal No.631/2014
21.07.2014
Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for appellant / State.
Heard on IA No.3992/2014, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The delay is of 279 days.
We find that the following is the explanation offered in the application seeking condonation of delay: -
"1. That the appellants have filed Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 12.07.2013 passed in WP No.10550/2012 (s) (Annexure A/1) by Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner has been allowed.
2. It is most humbly submitted that the Writ Appeal is being filed beyond the 278 days of limitation for which explanation is being given as under.
3/ That after getting knowledge of the decision passed in writ petition the copy of the order was obtained and the same was forwarded for necessary action to the Higher Authorities and vide letter dated 19.08.2013 sought opinion of the Government Advocate and opinion was granted vide letter dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure-A). Thereafter after obtaining opinion of the Government Advocate a letter dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure-B) was written to the higher authority- Commissioner, Public Education Sanchnalaya, Bhopal for obtaining permission to file writ appeal in the matter and for necessary action. Thereafter vide letter dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure-D) permission of the Law Department was granted. During this period, the OIC has been appointed in the matter. Thereafter, the Officer in Charge of the case immediately collected the entire record of the case and contacted the office of Advocate General at Indore where the record of the case was perused and appeal was drafted and same has 2 been filed without any further delay.
4. It is most humbly submitted that the delay of 278 day has been caused due to official formalities and procedure and same is bona fide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and there is no willful and deliberate delay in filing this Writ Appeal."
On going through the aforesaid averments, it is clear that very casual approach has been made by the appellant / State in seeking condonation of delay. The explanation offered cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-in-charge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual -manner in which the Government departments are functioning- showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation:
"The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government 3 bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav [(2014) 2 SCC 422].
In the circumstances, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation seeking condonation of such a huge delay, in our considered view, no case for condonation of delay is made out.
Consequently, application (IA No.3992/2014) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
As a result, the writ appeal is also dismissed.
(Shantanu Kemkar) (Mool Chand Garg)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC