2015 (1) TMI 1053 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of the delay of 2449 days - Held that - We are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has misdirected itself by not considering certain facts, namely, (a) that the notice of the writ petition was served on the earlier managing committee; (b) that the earlier committee had appeared in the writ court and was aware of the proceedings and the order; (c) that the District Inspector of schools had communicated to the managing committee to comply with the order of the learned single Judge; (d) that the earlier managing committee had undertaken before the learned single Judge to comply with the order; (e) that the new managing committee had taken over charge from the earlier managing committee; (f) that nothing has been indicated in the affidavit that under what circumstances the new managing committee, despite taking over charge, was not aware of the pending litigation or for that matter the communication from the District Inspector; (g) that the writ court was still in seisin of the matter and no final verdict had come and hence, it would not be a case where there will be failure of justice if the appeal against the interim order is not entertained on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the final order was subject to assail in appeal; (h) that the managing committee had exhibited gross negligence and, in any way, recklessness; (i) that the conduct and attitude of the members of the committee before the writ court deserved to be decried since they should not have taken recourse to maladroit effort in complying with the order of the court; and (j) and that it was obvious that the managing committee was really taking resort to dilatory tactics by not seeking necessitous legal remedy in quite promptitude. The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fide. The Division Bench of the High Court has failed to keep itself alive to the concept of exercise of judicial discretion that is governed by rules of reason and justice. Thus the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench condoning delay is set aside. -Decided in favour of revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta was justified in entertaining CAN No. 365 of 2011 for condoning the delay of 2449 days.
2. The legal principles governing the condonation of delay.
3. The factual matrix and the conduct of the parties involved.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for Entertaining CAN No. 365 of 2011 for Condoning the Delay of 2449 Days:

The Supreme Court examined whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta was justified in condoning a delay of 2449 days in filing an appeal against an interim order dated 25.2.2004. The Division Bench had condoned the delay and passed an interim order of stay, which was challenged in these appeals. The Supreme Court scrutinized the grounds provided for the delay, which included a change in the managing committee and miscommunication between the counsel and the parties. The Court found these grounds insufficient and highlighted that the new managing committee should have been aware of the pending litigation and the court orders. The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench misdirected itself by not considering significant facts and exhibited gross negligence and recklessness.

2. Legal Principles Governing the Condonation of Delay:

The Court referred to several precedents to outline the principles governing the condonation of delay. The key principles include:
- A liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach should be adopted.
- The term "sufficient cause" should be understood in its proper spirit and applied in a meaningful manner.
- Substantial justice should be paramount, and technical considerations should not be given undue emphasis.
- There should be no presumption of deliberate causation of delay, but gross negligence must be taken into account.
- The concept of liberal approach must encapsulate reasonableness.
- There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration.
- The conduct, behavior, and attitude of the party seeking condonation are relevant factors.
- The courts should be vigilant against fraud, misrepresentation, or interpolation.
- The entire gamut of facts must be carefully scrutinized.

The Court emphasized that the application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner and must be drafted with careful concern.

3. Factual Matrix and Conduct of the Parties Involved:

The factual matrix revealed that the appellant, an Assistant Teacher, had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court seeking approval of her appointment. Despite the interim order in her favor, the school authorities did not comply, leading to contempt petitions. The managing committee of the school changed, and the new committee claimed ignorance of the court orders. The Supreme Court noted that the earlier managing committee had undertaken to comply with the order, and the new committee, despite taking over, failed to act promptly. The Court criticized the managing committee's casual approach and lack of responsibility, stating that they cannot take recourse to dilatory tactics and must act with due care and caution.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the Division Bench condoning the delay, and dismissed the appeal before the Division Bench. The learned single Judge was requested to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the principles of limitation and the need for parties to seek remedies promptly.

← Previous Next →