2021 (1) TMI 1169 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 427 days in filing application - certificate cases - HELD THAT - The casual manner in which the State Government has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay is clear. In fact other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner Government, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. We have also categorized such kind of cases as certificate cases filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court had dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately - The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner/State of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time, which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund within four weeks - SLP dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing Special Leave Petition, Condonation of delay, Casual approach of State Government, Imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time, Refusal to grant certificates, Recovery of costs, Warning to Chief Secretary

Detailed Analysis:

Delay in filing Special Leave Petition:
The Special Leave Petition in question was filed with a delay of 427 days. The petitioner provided an explanation for the delay, citing various administrative processes and translations that consumed time. However, the Supreme Court noted the casual manner in which the State Government approached the Court without providing any substantial grounds for condonation of the delay.

Casual approach of State Government:
The Court criticized the State Government's lethargic and incompetent approach, emphasizing that public authorities must not disregard the limitation period prescribed by statutes. The Court referenced previous judgments to highlight the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the consequences of inefficiencies in the filing process.

Imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time:
Due to the significant delay and the lack of a convincing explanation, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose costs of ?25,000 on the petitioner/State for the wastage of judicial time. The Court emphasized the value of judicial time and directed the amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Refusal to grant certificates and Recovery of costs:
The Court categorically refused to grant certificates in such cases where the objective is merely to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court without addressing the underlying issues. Furthermore, the Court directed the recovery of the imposed costs from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition.

Warning to Chief Secretary:
In a stern warning, the Court directed that a copy of the order be presented to the Chief Secretary for the State of Gujarat, cautioning that any non-compliance with the order within the specified timeline would result in appropriate proceedings being initiated against the Chief Secretary himself.

In conclusion, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as time-barred, and the Court's order highlighted the importance of adhering to legal timelines, the consequences of a casual approach by public authorities, and the imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time to ensure accountability and efficiency in the legal process.