2014 (5) TMI 823 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Held that - 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 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 the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. - 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 - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing Special Leave Petition

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a delay of 481 days in filing a Special Leave Petition, with the petitioner seeking condonation thereof. The petitioner attributed the delay to the movement of files between different departments/officers. However, the court found this explanation insufficient, citing a previous case where such practices by government authorities/departments were deprecated. The court emphasized that the law of limitation applies to everyone, including the government, and that condonation of delay should not be a routine benefit. The court stressed that government departments must diligently perform their duties and provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays. In this case, as the department failed to offer a proper explanation for the significant delay, the court held that the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Analysis:
In a similar case involving a delay in filing a Special Leave Petition against the award of the Labour Court, which was upheld by the High Court, the Supreme Court had previously refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition on that ground. The court compared the current case to the previous one where the delay was not condoned, finding both cases to be almost identical. Consequently, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in the present case on the grounds of delay, in line with the previous judgment.