Cm Nos. 285 & 286/2023 vs Kuldeep Raj & Ors on 16 August, 2023
5. Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondents, has opposed the
application seeking condonation of delay in filing instant LPA by strenuously
articulating arguments, that the appeal is hopelessly time barred as there is an
inordinate and unexplained delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal. It is
argued, that the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2022 was passed in the
presence of the counsel for applicants/appellants who was very much aware
about the judgment impugned, applicants/appellants in their application have
neither placed on record anything nor uttered even a single word as to the
date when they received the copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2022 and as to
the date when they sought legal opinion and when they applied for the
sanction to prefer the above titled appeal before this Court. It is moreso
argued, that immediately after the judgment impugned was passed by the
writ court, a copy of the same was furnished to the applicants/appellants
though with a request to comply the same, appellants did not comply the
judgment whereof contempt petition bearing CCP (s) No. 22912022 dated
17.08.2022 was filed before the Ld. Single Judge who vide its order dated
23.08.2022 directed appellants to file compliance report, but instead of filing
the compliance report the appellants preferred the instant LPA well aware of
the date of passing the impugned judgment. It is urged, that the condonation
of delay application suffers from delay and latches, there is no explanation
of ―sufficient cause‖ for such delay, the law of limitation binds everybody
including the Government department, there is absence of diligence by the
department in prosecuting the instant LPA, there is no explanation offered as
to why application for procuring certified copies of impugned judgment was
not within prescribed period, unexplained delay has occasion at every stage
though the authorities/Government were well aware of the issues involved
including prescribed period of limitation. It is enthusiastically argued, that
5 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023
the condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for Govt. departments and offering usual explanation,
moving of file from one department/officer to other is not sufficient reason
for condoning such an abnormal delay, no details of the delay of 275 days
have been given as if the appellant has inherent right to seek condonation of
delay by State Govt. and moreso the law of limitation apparently does not
apply to State Govt. according to its conduct. To buttress his arguments,
learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported
in, (i) (1997) 7 SCC 556 [P.K. Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala &
Anr], (ii) (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cacse 563 [POST MASTER
GENERAL AND OTHERS versus LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. AND
ANOTHER], (iii) (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 [STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND
ANOTHER versus AMAR NATH YADAV], (iv) 2019 SCC OnLine SC
1314 [State of Bihar and Others---Petitioner(s) v. Deo Kumar Singh and
Others---Respondent(s)], (v) 2020) 13 SCC 745 [Appellants: University of
Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.], (vi) (2020) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 654 [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus
BHERULAL] and also the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court viz; (vii) Union Territory of J&K and others vs Abdul Rehman and
others [LPA No. 107/2021 CM Nos. 2561/2022, 7968/2021, 7969/2021] &