Baldeo Lal Roy vs State Of Bihar on 20 October, 1959
5. Counsel for the assessee has, however, contended that the ground given by the appellate Court for doubting the genuineness of the medical certificate is not appropriate because it was not necessary for the assessee to have been present for applying for the certified copy or for taking delivery of the same and that any one on his behalf could have done so. I do not think there is any merit in this contention also and, as has been rightly pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the person or persons who presented the application for a certified copy of the assessment order and took delivery of the copy had not been examined at any stage and, as a matter of fact, even their names had not been disclosed. Be that as it may, even in law the assessee is not entitled to have the delay condoned though he may have been actually ill during the period from the 25th of January, 1952, to the nth of February, 1952. In order that one can claim to get the delay condoned, he must show by his conduct that he was diligent all along in taking appropriate steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence. If, however, it appears that an applicant is not diligent but is guilty of laches and negligence and does not take appropriate steps for pursuing his remedy till about the close of the period prescribed for an action to be taken, he cannot claim to have the delay condoned if per chance or by accident he happened to have exceeded the prescribed period in taking the proper steps. In such a case he must thank himself and must be prepared always to take the risk of having his remedy barred without expecting exercise of any discretion by a Court in his favour in condoning the delay. The view that I have taken gains support from a Bench decision of this Court in Jahar Mahal v. G.M. Pritchard A.I.R. 1919 Pat. 503. The following observation of Dawson Miller, C.J., who gave the leading judgment in that case, is very important in this connection :-