2021 (1) TMI 1128 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 545 qua the order in Writ Appeal - Writ Appeal itself was preferred after a delay of 783 days - proper explanation for delay not provided - certificate cases - HELD THAT - In the present case, the State Government has not even taken the trouble of citing any reason or excuse nor any dates given in respect of the period for which condonation is sought. The objective of such an exercise has also been elucidated by us in the aforesaid judgment where we have categorized such cases as certificate cases - The object of such cases appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say nothing could done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is mere completion of formality to give a quietus to the litigation and save the skin of the officers who may be at fault by not taking action in prescribed time. If the state government feels that they have suffered losses, then it must fix responsibility on concerned officers for their inaction but that ironically never happens. These matters are preferred on a presumption as if this Court will condone the delay in every case, if the State Government is able to say something on merits. SLP dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions, condonation of delay, government inefficiency in filing cases, imposition of costs for delay.

The Supreme Court addressed the delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in this case, highlighting significant delays of 1954 days and 545 days concerning the impugned order and Writ Appeal, respectively. The Court noted that the Writ Appeal was filed after a delay of 783 days, which was inadequately explained. The Court expressed concern over the conduct of the State Government in repeatedly filing matters beyond the prescribed limitation period, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory laws. The Court observed that the government's inefficiency or deliberate actions should not warrant the Court's intervention, especially when there is no sufficient reason provided for the delay. The judgment referenced previous cases to emphasize the importance of adhering to legal principles and limitations, indicating a shift in judicial approach due to technological advancements.

The Court criticized the State Government for failing to provide any valid reasons or excuses for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions. The Court categorized such cases as "certificate cases," where the objective seems to be obtaining a dismissal certificate from the Supreme Court to conclude the litigation without addressing the underlying issues. The Court highlighted the need for the government to hold responsible officers accountable for inaction leading to losses instead of relying on the Court to condone delays based on merits. The Court emphasized that the filing of cases should not be a mere formality to absolve officers of their responsibilities.

In response to the significant delay and the casual manner of the application for condonation, the Court imposed costs of ?25,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund. The Court directed the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay in filing both the Writ Appeal and the Special Leave Petition. Additionally, the Court mandated the submission of a certificate of recovery within four weeks. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as time-barred, with a directive to the Chief Secretary for compliance, warning of consequential actions for non-compliance with the Court's directions.