2015 (2) TMI 1309 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT - It is fairly well-settled that the State functions in an impersonal fashion and that the ordinary standards applicable to a litigant pursuing his own case do not at times apply stricto sensu to the action or inaction of the State. That apart the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court has not in the instant case suggested any collusion at the level of the State Government. What appears to have actually happened is that the appeal papers were presented within the time but repeatedly re-presented without fully removing the defects in which process there was considerable delay. The report no doubt confines the charge of dereliction to the two range officers mentioned earlier. We are of the view that the range officers being themselves under the supervisory control of their higher officers the latter were as much responsible for ensuring that the former perform their duties diligently. The enquiry report has not gone into that aspect. The Secretary Department of Environment and Forest Government of Tamil Nadu shall call for an explanation of the officers who were during the relevant period supervising the two range officers mentioned in the report. The officers would be called upon to explain as to why they were unable to take note of the neglect/dereliction of duties by the range officers concerned and explain their failure to do so - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in re-presentation of appeal papers before the High Court.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Responsibility for the delay and disciplinary actions.
4. Request for expedited disposal of the appeal by the High Court.

Issue 1: Delay in re-presentation of appeal papers before the High Court:
The case involved an appeal arising from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land. The appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period but faced a delay of 3412 days in re-presentation due to defects in the appeal memorandum. An application for condonation of the delay was rejected by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed an enquiry into the delay, which revealed that the blame was placed on two range officers for not rectifying the defects promptly.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the inordinate delay but considered the impersonal functioning of the State and the lack of collusion at the State Government level. Despite the lengthy delay, the Court decided to condone it, subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 50,000. The Court emphasized the need to identify those responsible for the delay and directed the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Forest, Tamil Nadu, to seek explanations from the supervisory officers of the range officers involved.

Issue 3: Responsibility for the delay and disciplinary actions:
The Court held that the supervisory officers should also be held accountable for the negligence of the range officers under their control. It directed the State Government to examine the officers' explanations and consider suitable reforms to prevent such delays in the future. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring diligence in pursuing litigation, especially in cases involving valuable properties.

Issue 4: Request for expedited disposal of the appeal by the High Court:
In light of the prolonged delay in the case, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the appeal's disposal within a year once the papers are received. The Court emphasized the need for timely resolution to prevent further delays in granting relief to the respondents. No costs were awarded in this regard.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, condoned the delay, and directed the State Government to investigate and take necessary actions to prevent future delays. The High Court was urged to expedite the appeal's disposal within a year for timely resolution of the matter.