Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Haribhai Sankarlal Raval on 18 February, 2020
Author: Ashutosh J. Shastri
Bench: Vikram Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/CA/953/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 953 of 2020
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 41070 of 2019
WITH
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 41070 of 2019
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.19691 OF 2006
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HARIBHAI SANKARLAL RAVAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Applicants
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 18/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI)
1. The present Civil Application is filed by the State - applicants, seeking condonation of delay of 1153 days which has occurred in preferring Letters Patent Appeal filed against judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.19691 of 2006.
2. We have heard Shri D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State - applicants. Shri Devnani, has submitted that in view of circumstances that occurred during the passage of time, the applicants were required to Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER challenge the original order passed in Special Civil Application No.19691 of 2019, dated 15.9.2006. It has been submitted that the detailed circumstances narrated in the application are to be considered as sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. Shri Devnani has further submitted that the delay is always to be construed liberally. On account of technical approach, the meritorious case may not be deprived proper adjudication in accordance with law.
2.1 Shri Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the present appeal has been filed with specific permission having been granted by earlier Division Bench of this Court. To substantiate that, a reference is made to an order dated 21.1.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1918 of 2007 that was filed challenging the very same order of the present proceeding. By referring to the observations made in Para.3 of the said decision, a request is made that the delay that has occurred during the passage of time, be condoned in the interest of justice. It has been submitted that some of the officers in charge of the department set tight over the proceedings and the State Authorities have contemplated action against them, as well. In view of this peculiar set of circumstance, since the delay is well explained, the relief contained in Para.12(B) be granted in Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER the interest of justice.
3. Having heard Shri D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State applicants and having gone through the record attached with this application, we have seen that there appears to be a gross delay in preferring the present appeal. The order that was passed way back in September,2006, is tried to be assailed by way of present Letters Patent Appeal taking advantage of the stray observations which have been made by the earlier Division Bench way back in January, 2014. The Division Bench in earlier Letters Patent Appeal No.1918 of 2007 has no doubt granted the liberty to move before the appropriate forum. But that appropriate forum has not been approached by the State Authorities for a considerable long period.
4. The appeal filed also has a peculiar background. Bare perusal of the original order of September, 2006 also has the background of two cases that have identically been considered. We are at a stage of considering the explanation of delay only and we refrain ourselves from commenting anything on the impugned order dated 18.9.2006. Bare perusal of the present proceedings suggests that no proper explanation appears to have Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER been assigned. Even, the earlier Letters Patent Appeal that was disposed of, was filed by the State applicants at a belated stage and the said Letters Patent Appeal of 2007 was decided by the State authorities on 21.1.2014. So, these are the circumstances that compel us to undertake a close scrutiny of the explanation that has been given, seeking condonation of delay. We find that the averments contained in the application are not sufficient to condone such a long delay of more than a thousand days, especially when permission was granted way back in January, 2014. The State Authority has not moved the present application even till February, 2020. This application appears to have been registered only on 15.2.2020. Keeping in view the well propounded proposition on the issue of delay, we are not inclined to accept the explanation which is laconic in nature.
5. Time and again, the Apex Court has propounded that long delay deserves to be minutely examined . No doubt, the delay has to be construed liberally. But the same cannot be stretched to such an extent that in the absence of any cogent reasons, the long delay also to be mechanically condoned. Since we are not inclined to accept the explanation of the State applicants on the delay, we deem it proper to reproduce the relevant observations of the decisions which are taken note of by this Court which are Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER as under :
(1) In case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612, the relevant observations in Para. 11 to 15 are reproduced hereinafter: "11. The courts should not adopt an in justice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However the court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
12. It is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
13. In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotravyya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER
14. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366, observing as under:- "Suffice it to state that appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wakeup when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratios. therefore desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority, held by them in various cadre are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.
15. In M/s.Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674, this Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under:- "There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are reagitating claims which they have not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."
(2) In case of Amalendu Kumar Bera & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52. The observations made in Para.10 are relevant and the same are reproduced hereinafter :
"10. In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly earlier objection filed by the RespondentState under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on 17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the RespondentState after about one year filed another objection on 15.9.2011 under Section 47 of the Code which was finally rejected by the executing court. It was only after a writ of attachment was issued by the executing court the respondent preferred civil revision against the first order dated 17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Curiously enough Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER in the application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been shown which entitle the respondent to get a favourable order for condonation of delay. True it is, that courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there is serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decree holder puts the decree in execution. As noticed above, the decree passed in the year 1967 was in respect of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the RespondentState from interfering with the possession of the suit property of the plaintiffappellant. It is evident that when the State tried to interfere with possession the decree holder had no alternative but to levy the execution case for execution of the decree with regard to interference with possession. In our opinion their delay in filing the execution case cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order refusing to entertain objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court while deciding petition for condoning the delay. Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of 'sufficient cause' delay shall not be condoned."
6. Yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limited & Anr., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 680 where a view was taken that in a long delay, stringent scrutiny is always needed. So, keeping this principle in mind, we have seen in the present case on hand that there is no adequate explanation to seek condonation of delay. We are not inclined to exercise our Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020 C/CA/953/2020 ORDER jurisdiction.
7. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are no impressed by the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Accordingly, the application itself is not entertainable. As a result of this, the present civil application stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
8. Consequently, main Letters Patent Appeal as also the connected Civil Application for stay also stand dismissed.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) V.J. SATWARA Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 01:27:41 IST 2020