State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs Rajni Rani on 16 February, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014
In/and
First Appeal No.874 of 2014
Date of institution : 01.07.2014
Date of decision : 16.02.2016
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman.
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajni Rani wife of Sh. Joginder Pal, resident of 91, New Rasila
Nagar, near Ekta Park, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
11.03.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Aman Dhir, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
M.A.No.1326 of 2014(Delay):
This application has been filed by the appellant/opposite party for condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal; which has been preferred against the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "District Forum"), directing it to hand over the physical possession of the plot, along with "No Due Certificate" to the respondent/ complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation on account Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 2 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 of the delay in handing over the possession of the plot to her, in-spite of receiving the entire sale consideration. It has been contended in the application that the copy of the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 was received by the appellant on 18.03.2014 and thereafter the same was examined at various levels of the concerned departments and thereafter it was decided to file the appeal. The delay of 79 days occurred in the said process. That delay is neither intentional nor wilful, but is bona fide and it has a strong case in the appeal.
2. The application was contested by the respondent/ complainant, by filing the reply to the same. In the reply, she denied the contentions raised in the application and pleaded that the delay occurred due to the inaction on the part of the appellant itself; as a result of which a valuable right has accrued to her, which cannot be taken away. No sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay, which was due to deliberate inaction and negligence on the part of the appellant. She prayed for the dismissal of the application.
3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the records.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, being a State, stands at different footing than an individual and is entitled to the concession in the matters of condoning the delay, as per the following two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 3
In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014
i) State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Others 1996 AIR (SC) 1623; and
ii) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Civil)
126.
He further submitted that some procedure is to be followed by the appellant-Trust for filing the appeal; in which the file is moved from one official/department to the other official/department and in that process, the delay of 79 days occurred. The appellant has been able to show a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and, as such, the same is liable to be condoned.
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned, merely on the ground that the appellant is a State. No sufficient cause has been stated in the application, nor proved. It has not been stated in the application, as to on which date the file moved from one department to the other and on which date the same was received back and how that delay had occurred? When such is the position, the delay cannot be condoned. The appellant has failed to prove any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in:-
i) Revision Petition No.915 of 2014 decided on 13.02.2014 (The Superintendent, Head Post Office Swaimadhopur, State Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Sunita Gautam & Others); and
ii) Revision Petition No.1836 of 2013 decided on 09.12.2013 (Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs. Harpreet Kaur). Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 4
In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014
6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following observations made in Chandra Mani's case (supra):-
"11. 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 merit. 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, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 5 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption 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-a-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 take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible 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 Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 6 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. He also relied upon the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmed Jaan's case (supra):-
14. 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, certain amount of latitude 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 approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption 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-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 7 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 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 or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible 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."
7. It is pertinent to note that these observations were made after the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed in detail, as to what constitutes a "sufficient cause" and what is required to be proved for condoning the delay. While doing so, a number of judgments of the Apex Court itself on the said point were discussed. However, it becomes very much clear from those judgments that the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual, so far as the question of condoning the delay is concerned. The expression "sufficient cause" is to be considered with a pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. In case of the Government, it Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 8 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 is not required to prove the sufficient cause with strict standards and certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. It can also be made out from those judgments that the Apex Court laid down that the Court should decide the matters on merits, unless the case is hopelessly without merit.
8. Only the following cause has been disclosed in the application for condoning the delay:-
"That it is submitted that the copy of the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar were received by the Appellant on 18.03.2014. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was examined at various levels of the concerned departments of the appellant, upon which consideration it was decided to file an appeal against the aforesaid impugned order. However, in this process, a delay of 79 days has occurred in filing the present appeal."
9. Similar was the case in the judgments, so relied upon by the counsel for the respondent. In Smt. Sunita Gautam's case (supra), there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay, except mentioning of various dates. It was concluded by the Hon'ble National Commission that the department had miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the delay. In Harpreet Kaur's case (supra), it was observed that condoning of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. In Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 9 In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014 that case, no explanation was offered, as to why the appeal was not filed immediately after the receipt of the legal opinion.
10. No doubt, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are to be preferred to the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission, but from the judgments so relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, the only conclusion which can be made is that the State stands at a different footing than an individual in the matters of condoning the delay, but still some cause is to be shown for the delay and the same should be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is very much clear from the above reproduced part of the application that the appellant has failed to disclose the names of the departments, by which the matter was examined, the different dates on which the file of the case was sent from one department to the other and the dates on which the same was received back. Such a vague cause disclosed in the application cannot be held to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The law of limitation should be applied with all its rigour; as on non-filing of the matters within the period of limitation, the other party is vested with a right; which cannot be taken away, so lightly. On over all consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to show a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The application is dismissed accordingly. Main Appeal:
11. As a result of the dismissal of the application for condoning the delay, the appeal stands dismissed, as barred by time.
Misc. Application No.1326 of 2014 10
In/and First Appeal No.874 of 2014
12. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.75,000/-, vide receipt dated 11.09.2014, in compliance of the order dated 14.08.2014. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
13. Arguments in this case were heard on 15.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The application/appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER February 16, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)