Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of J&K And Others vs Anil Raina And Others on 11 November, 2022
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 05.11.2022.
Pronounced on: 11.11.2022.
CDLSW No. 74/2018
State of J&K and others ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.
V/s
Anil Raina and others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Rahul Pant, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
Tashi Rabstan,J:
1. CDLSW No. 74/2018 is an application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 406 days in filing the appeal.
2. In support of his submissions, Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG appearing for the applicants submits that the judgment against which the appeal is sought to be filed is passed on 22.07.2016. The certified copy of the said judgment was received on 16.11.2016 after a lapse of three months. On 16.02.2017, the file was sent to the Information Technology Department for opinion and the same was given on 21.04.2017. Further, the file was sent for seeking sanction from the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs. Finally, the sanction was obtained on 08.09.2017. Hence, the delay of 406 days is caused in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay caused on the part of the State in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful. 2 CDLSW No.74/2018
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the grounds in the appeal are strong on merits and the applicants are sure to succeed in the appeal and in case the delay is not condoned, the appeal be not heard on merits.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused this application.
6. On perusal of the application seeking condonation, it would transpire that the applicants are not serious in filing the appeal on time as they have taken three months for obtaining certified copy of the judgment impugned and further a one more month is frittered away after obtaining sanction from the competent authority which shows that the applicants have acted in a very nonchalant manner. There is also no plausible and cogent explanation for seeking condonation of delay. It is also not a case where the judgment impugned has been passed exparte and the applicants were oblivious of the same. The judgment is passed on 20.07.2016 and the applicants were represented by Mr. Rupinder Singh, AAG. No explanation has been tendered in the application which could justify the time which the applicants have taken in filing the appeal.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7595-96 of 2011 dated 24.02.2012) titled Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. and Another on account of no proper explanation for delay observed as under:-
"In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of 3 CDLSW No.74/2018 procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., on 04.02.2021 on account of delay observed as under:-
"We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake! The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this 4 CDLSW No.74/2018 Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]........................."
9. Having regard to above referred judgment, it suggests that the applicants have perceived delay in a cavalier manner as a routine matter and its lackadaisical tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the applicants have pursued the matter. Despite the availability of huge manpower and machinery at its disposal, the State has barely managed to obtain the certified copy of the judgment impugned after a lapse of three months. The reasons for such delay are not forthcoming from the application. Further, a month more is squandered after having sanction from the competent authority. The delay caused by the State after obtaining sanction is also not explained at all.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and the settled law position, we do not find any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay of 406 days in filing the appeal and 5 CDLSW No.74/2018 accordingly, the delay condonation application (CDLSW No.74/2018) is dismissed.
(Rajesh Sekhri) ) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
11.11.2022
Raj kumar
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.