2015 (8) TMI 1514 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that after getting knowledge of the order dated 20.11.2013 the same was forwarded for necessary action to the Higher Authorities - HELD THAT - The Courts should not take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay when State s action in preferring an appeal is marred by serious laches and negligence in absence of sufficient cause - It is equally well settled that if the appellant has substance in the appeal then the appeal has to be on merits. The Apex Court time and again stated that there should be a liberal pragmatic justice-oriented non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. There is distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration. In the present case the appeal is only barred by 137 days. The State representing the collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing writ appeal, Condonation of delay, Negligence by State in filing appeal, Principles of condonation of delay, Imposition of costs.

Analysis:
The judgment before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing a writ appeal by the State. The appeal was delayed by 137 days, and the State sought condonation based on various grounds. The State explained that upon receiving knowledge of the order, it took necessary steps by seeking opinions and permissions before filing the appeal. The respondents, however, argued that the delay was not adequately explained and highlighted the lack of diligence on the part of the State in filing the appeal promptly. They pointed out specific periods where no action was taken, alleging gross negligence and deliberate inaction by the appellants.

In its analysis, the Court emphasized that a liberal approach should not be taken in condoning delays when the State's actions are marked by serious laches and negligence without a "sufficient cause." The Court reiterated the principle that if the appeal has merit, it should be considered on its substantive grounds. Citing previous judgments, the Court stressed the need for a justice-oriented approach, balancing substantial justice with technical considerations. The Court distinguished between inordinate delays and shorter durations, noting that in this case, the delay was only 137 days. Considering the collective cause represented by the State, the Court decided to condone the delay but imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 as a penalty. The Court directed the Officer in Charge (OIC) to pay this cost to the respondents within four weeks.

In conclusion, the Court allowed and disposed of the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of balancing justice with procedural considerations and imposing costs as a deterrent against negligence in filing appeals promptly.