Gauhati High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Tilak Kalita & 3 Ors on 10 February, 2017
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
I.A. 841/2016 in SL. NO.259859 LA APP.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
10.02.2017
Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Barkataki, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 3521 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Guwahati in Reference Case No.17/2001 arising out of L.A. Case No.6/1991 (Ka).
It is the case of the applicant that by the impugned judgment and decree, the learned court below had not only enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector but had also doubled the amount awarded in respect of 'jirats' besides awarding interest at an exhorbitant rate and the amount has been directed to be recovered from the applicant . Although the applicant was vitally interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, it was not made a party in the Reference Case No.17/2001 as a result of which the impugned judgment and decree was passed without hearing the applicant. It was only upon receipt of notice in connection with Money Execution Case No.11/2011 that the applicant became aware of the impugned judgment and decree for the first time in the month of April, 2013 whereafter, immediate steps were taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Court. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the competent authority for obtaining legal opinion and administrative sanction for preferring an appeal against the impugned judgment and order but there was further delay in the matter due to merger of the two wings of the company i.e. IOCL(AOD) with IOCL(MD) which had created legal hurdles in the way of granting expeditious administrative approval for processing the file. The applicant has further stated that although the delay calculated from the date of judgment is of 3521 days, yet, reckoned from the date of knowledge of the decree, the delay is only 730 days. On the basis of such explanation the prayer for condonation of delay has been made.
Referring to the statements made in the application for delay condonation Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that proper and sufficient explanation for the delay has been furnished by the applicant justifying the prayer made therein.
Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay by submitting that the applicant has failed to explain the delay in a proper manner with effect, at least, from the date on which it had acquired knowledge of the impugned judgment and order if not from the date of the decree. Mr. Medhi further submits that the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for not impleading the applicant since the Reference was made by the learned Collector and not the opposite parties.
On a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record, I find that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the Reference Court in a proceeding where the applicant was not made a party. The applicant came to acquire knowledge about the impugned judgment and decree only upon receipt of notice in connection with execution case and thereafter took steps for preferring the appeal which got further delayed due to merger of the two wings of the applicant company. Moreover, the applicants being a Government of India undertaking, in a matter of this nature, it is quite obvious that multiple rounds of legal opinion followed by administrative approvals of different authorities would have to be obtained before a concrete step can be taken towards preferring the appeal and the process would require the file to move from one table to another and from one place to the other.
In the case of Esha Bhattacharjere vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the term "sufficient cause" in delay condonation matter 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. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal, the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. Again, in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191(1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while considering the sufficient cause explaining the delay, the Government and the private parties cannot be put on the same footing and having regard to the peculiar characteristics of functioning of a Government department, a pragmatic approach and certain amount of latitude is not impermissible.
Although I find that the decision making process in the present case had moved in an extremely slow pace yet, the delay cannot be said to have been caused due to any deliberate inaction on the part of the applicant but for procedural reasons which were not wholly within the control of the applicant. It is not merely the length of delay but the sufficiency of cause shown by the applicant that has to be borne in mind while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. Considering the fact that the impugned decree, imposing substantial financial burden upon the applicant, was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, a lenient view of the court is called for in the matter.
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the applicant has been able to furnish sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the connected appeal. As such, the delay of 3521 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
Office to register the connected appeal and list for admission after ten days.
The I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE TUC