Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Swamiti Thr. ... on 5 August, 2015
W. A. No.617/2014
05.08.2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned A.A.G. with Shri P. Bhargava,
learned Dy. A. G. for the appellants - State.
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.3858/2014, which is an application for condonation of delay. The writ appeal filed by the appellants is barred by 137 days.
2. The application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that after getting knowledge of the order dated 20.11.2013, the same was forwarded for necessary action to the Higher Authorities and vide letter dated 17.02.2014 sought opinion of the Government Advocate and opinion was granted on 28.03.2014. After obtaining opinion of the Government Advocate, the same was communicated vide letter dated 21.04.2014 to the Secretary, Government of M.P. for obtaining permission to file writ appeal and for necessary action. After obtaining permission, the writ appeal was filed on 05.07.2014. Para-3 of the application reads as under :-
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 17.02.2014 sought opinion of the Government Advocate and opinion was granted vide letter on 28.03.2014 (Annexure-A). After obtaining opinion of the Govt. Advocate the same was communicated vide letter dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure-B) to the higher authority - Secretary, Govt. of M.P., Dharmik Nyas Evam Dharmaswa Vibhag, Bhopal for obtaining permission to file writ appeal in the matter and for necessary action. It is submitted that the matter is sent to the Law Department, however, the permission is awaited in the matter and because of the delay caused in awaiting the permission the appeal is filed as per the order of the Collector dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-C). Thereafter, the Officer in charge 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 been filed without any further delay.
3. After filing of reply by the respondents, an additional affidavit has been filed by the OIC of the case stating therein that vide letter dated 05.12.2013, the respondents informed the State Government about the passing of impugned order dated 20.11.2013. The State Government vide its letter dated 08.01.2014 communicated the Collector, Ujjain for taking further action. Thereafter, the Collector appointed Sub-Divisional Officer, Ujjain as OIC of the case and after obtaining opinion from the Government Advocate, the matter was referred to the Law Department through proper channel. On 27.06.2014, sanction was granted by the Law Department and thereafter, on 01.07.2014, permission was granted to file the writ appeal and, thereafter, writ appeal was filed on 03.07.2014 (correct date of filing of writ appeal is 05.07.2014).
4. It is submitted that delay in filing the writ appeal is bonafide and the date of knowledge of passing of final order dated 20.11.2013 is 11.12.2013 and, thereafter, by following due process, the writ appeal has been filed.
5. As per reply of the respondents, no proper explanation of delay caused in filing the writ appeal has been given. It is also pointed out that as per averments made in the condonation application, the appeal has been filed by the SDO without any sanction from the competent authority (Law Department). It is also pointed out that the appellant No.1 was well aware of passing of the impugned order but no diligence was shown to file the appeal in time. It is further submitted that through the respondents, the appellants came to know about the passing of impugned order on 11.12.2013, yet no action was taken to file the appeal in time and moved the process with diligence. He submits that there is no explanation for the period 08.01.2014 to 17.02.2014 (23 days), 17.02.2014 to 20.03.2014 (39 days), 28.03.2014 to 21.04.2014 (25 days) and no explanation for the period 11.02.2014 to 03.07.2014 and submitted that there was gross negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the appellants and thus, the department cannot take advantage on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to Paras-28, 29 and 30 of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in 2012(3) SCC 563 and prays for rejection of the application.
6. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Courts should not take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay when State's action in preferring an appeal is marred by serious laches and negligence in absence of "sufficient cause".
7. It is equally well settled that if the appellant has substance in the appeal then the appeal has to be on merits.
8. The Apex Court time and again stated that 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. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. There is distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration. In the present case, the appeal is only barred by 137 days. The State representing the collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. We are relying on the principles summarized by the Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy reported in 2013(12) SCC 649 and condone the delay of 137 days by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cost amount be payable to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. The OIC of the case without going through the record of the case has given his additional affidavit and, therefore, we direct the OIC of the case to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents.
9. With the aforesaid, I.A. No.3858/2014 stands allowed and disposed of.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (T. K. Kaushal)
Judge Judge
gp