Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Ram Lakhan And Another on 17 July, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 761 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.07.2013
State of Punjab and others ..Appellants
Versus
Ram Lakhan and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellants.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 2038 of 2013 The appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2012. The appeal had to be filed within 30 days from that date. The certified copy of the order was applied on 03.12.2012 and was ready on 20.12.2012 and collected on 21.12.2012. The Department took 17 days to mark the copy of judgment for opinion to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab vide letter dated 07.01.2013 despite being conscious of the fact that total time period available for filing the appeal was 30 days, out of which on account of certified copy being applied late five days had already elapsed. The advice from the office of the Advocate General, Punjab again took more than a month stated to have been delivered on 08.02.2013.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 761 of 2013 (O&M) [2]
The saga of delay does not come to end here. Thereafter the concerned authority gave approval on 27.02.2013 to file the appeal and again took 15 days time to transmit the relevant papers to the office of the Advocate General which was received on 15.03.2013. The office of Advocate General took 18 days time to prepare the appeal papers and the appeal has thereafter been filed on 04.04.2013.
We record the relevant dates in detail aforesaid because each part of the delay may not be fatal but total amount of delay as accumulated to 80 days shows lethargy at every stage. The only explanation given by learned counsel for the appellant is slow government machinery which is no more a reason for seeking condonation of delay. The law on this issue stands clearly enunciated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1506 observing that there is no need to accept the usual explanation that file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. It has been observed that the Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law of limitation binds everyone equally including government departments.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 761 of 2013 (O&M) [3]
In view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
The appeal being barred by time is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
We may also note that undisputedly the impugned judgment is passed in terms of the judgment of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 890 of 2010 titled as State of Punjab and others Vs. Parshotam Dass and another decided on 02.08.2010, as noticed in the impugned judgment and even otherwise the issue is no more res-integra in so far as this Court is concerned.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 17.07.2013 JUDGE 'ravinder' Sharma Ravinder 2013.07.18 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document