Punjab State And Ors vs Hollywood Co-Op. Labour And ... on 10 October, 2014

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab State And Ors vs Hollywood Co-Op. Labour And ... on 10 October, 2014

Present revision petition, filed by the State, is directed against the order dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure P2), passed by the District Judge, Amritsar, wherein he has dismissed the application for condonation on the ground of delay of 285 days in filing the appeal, on account of the fact that no sufficient cause could be shown by the petitioner-State in support of its case for condonation of delay.

A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that a suit for recovery was filed by the respondent-Society for `9.92 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of the completion of the work till the date of realisation. The respondent-Society had been allotted the work order in the year 2002 and the same was completed to the satisfaction of the Department in the month of March, 2003. The bills having not paid, it approached this Court by filing CWP No.7789 of 2007 and on 31.05.2007, a direction was issued to decide the legal notice within a period of 2 months. The rejection order was passed on 31.07.2007, which was challenged by filing the suit.

The State failed to conclude its evidence inspite of availing various opportunities and the evidence was closed by order, by drawing an adverse MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -2- inference against the State since the measurement book and the relevant witnesses had also not been produced and the suit was decreed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date and at the future rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the decree i.e. 11.05.2012. The judgment and decree was applied on 16.05.2012 and the same was prepared on 23.07.2012 and delivered on 25.07.2012 whereas the appeal was filed on 10.02.2014.

It is also a matter of fact that the initial opinion was that the case was not fit for filing an appeal. The said opinion was forwarded by the Chief Engineer (Canals), Irrigation Department vide letter dated 13.08.2012. The said decision was, thereafter, sent back to the Superintending Engineer of the UBDE Circle, Amritsar on 13.09.2012. The Executive Engineer, Jandiala Division, UBDC, Amritsar requested the Superintending Engineer, Amritsar for getting the approval of the competent authority for filing of appeal. The requisite approval was, thereafter, granted on 26.03.2013 by the Home Department and a letter was sent to the Director, Prosecution & Litigation, Chandigarh on 04.04.2013. However, the appeal was filed on 10.02.2014 before the Lower Appellate Court. Only Pushap Karan Chander, Executive Engineer, Jandiala Division, UBDC Amritsar was examined who further admitted that an undertaking had been given in the Executing Court that they were ready to make payment to the respondent. The Lower Appellate Court took into account the fact that each and every days delay is to be explained and there is lack of explanation and the procedural delay cannot be taken to be reasonable ground for condonation of delay and accordingly, dismissed the application.

From a perusal of the grounds of revision filed, it would also be clear that the amount was recovered in March, 2014 in execution proceedings in view of the order dated 28.02.2014, passed by the Executing Court whereby payment MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -3- worth `19,38,450/- was withdrawn from the account of the Department and deposited in the Court. Thus the above sequence of events show that this is a classic case of the State failing to discharge its obligation and trying to shift the burden of responsibility upon the Courts regarding decision making. Firstly the payment has been delayed for years, from 2003 onwards, when the work was completed. The said issue was never defended in the appropriate manner and the evidence was closed by order, leading to the decree in question along with interest. The initial opinion rightly was that it was not a fit case for filing the appeal. But, however, on reconsideration by the authorities, the sanction was again granted for filing of the appeal. The delay, in filing the appeal on 10.02.2014 as noticed above, has not been explained even after the sanction was granted on 04.04.2013. It has been time and again held that where there is negligence and inaction or want of bona fides then the delay is not to be condoned. Sufficient cause is not to be given liberal consideration and only where there is a short period of delay, the same can be applied. The principles of limitation are to be applied on the same basis as to private parties and the State.

In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & another (2008) 17 SCC 448 the Apex Court set aside the order condoning the delay of 1724 days, pertaining to the filing of the appeals against the awards passed by the Civil Judge in land acquisition cases. It was, accordingly, held that Courts are not to enquire into the belated stale claims on the grounds of equity and they are only to help those who are vigilant and not those who slumber over their rights. The law of limitation being founded on public policy and dragging the other side to legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Only where the Government could show that there was a fraud or collusion and the officers of the Department were working for cross MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -4- purpose, they could seek condonation of delay. Relevant observations read as under:

"30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land loosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land loosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land loosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly 11 interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

31. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 submission made across the Bar without there being any proper I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -5- foundation in the pleadings."

In the present case also, there is no such averment that the delay was on account of any mala fides on the part of any officials who wanted the other party to benefit. In the absence of the same, the District Judge, Amritsar was well justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and this Court is further fortified in its decision making by the fact that the amount due to the Society has already been paid in execution.

In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Gujarat Industrial Department Corporation 2010 (5) SCC 459, the Apex Court held that sufficient cause is elastic enough to subserve the ends of justice but held that the law was founded on public policy and the legal remedy cannot be kept alive for an indefinite period. Accordingly, the condonation of 4 years in filing of the appeal by the State, which had been allowed by the High Court, was set aside. Relevant observations read as under:

"8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate

- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -6- Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."

In Maniben Devi Raj Sekhar Vs. Municipal Corporatioon__Brihan Mumbai 2012 (5) SCC 157, the same view was followed and it was held that no premium can be given for total lethargy and the negligence of the officers and the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course.

In Amalendu Kumar Bera & others Vs. State of West Bengal 2013 (4) SCC 52, the condonation of delay, which was allowed by the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court by noting that there was no sufficient cause shown even though a liberal approach should be made when the appellant is the State but in a case where there are serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objections under Section 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. It was further observed that it was the case of the State and as such, the delay in filing the revision petition cannot and shall not be in any manner be considered in the absence of sufficient cause.

Similarly in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 2013(12) SCC 649, the following MAMTA principles were laid down:-

2014.10.28 10:25

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -7- 15.

(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 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 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 MAMTA 2014.10.28 10:25 and not on individual perception.

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CR No.6907 of 2014 -8-

(xiii) The State or a public body or any 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 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 required to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.

Accordingly, keeping in view the above principles laid down by the Apex Court and the facts noticed and summarized above, this Court is of the opinion that the District Judge, Amritsar was well justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the present revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is dismissed.




            10.10.2014                                                     (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
            sailesh/mmt                                                           JUDGE




MAMTA
2014.10.28 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court