2021 (1) TMI 1170 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 1288 days in filing application - cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay, given or not - HELD THAT - The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. The 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 has 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. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. 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(s) of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund within four weeks - Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay, Casual Approach of Petitioner, Imposition of Costs

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment deals with a Special Leave Petition filed with a delay of 1288 days. The petitioner provided an explanation for the delay, citing bureaucratic processes and the busy schedule of the Government Advocate. However, the court found the explanation lacking in cogency or plausibility. The court criticized the casual manner in which the petitioner approached the court without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The court emphasized that State Governments and public authorities cannot disregard statutory limitation periods. Reference was made to previous judgments discouraging such lax approaches by authorities. The court highlighted that the leniency shown in the past due to technological limitations no longer applies.

Casual Approach of Petitioner:
The judgment underlines the court's disapproval of what it terms as "certificate cases," where authorities file cases merely to obtain closure from the Supreme Court without addressing the underlying issues. The court condemned this practice, refusing to grant such certificates. It expressed frustration over the lack of accountability of officers responsible for delays or misconduct. The court emphasized that officers should face consequences for their actions, rather than escaping with mild warnings. The judgment reflects the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal process and ensuring accountability.

Imposition of Costs:
In response to the delay and the casual manner of the application, the court deemed it appropriate to impose costs of ?25,000 on the petitioner for wasting judicial time. The court directed the amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund within four weeks. Furthermore, the court ordered the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the petition. The judgment stressed the importance of valuing judicial time and holding accountable those responsible for causing delays. Additionally, the court cautioned the Chief Secretary for the State of Karnataka to adhere to the court's order, warning of potential proceedings if the directive is not followed within the specified timeline.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as time-barred due to the significant delay and the lack of a compelling justification for condonation. The court's decision reflects a firm stance against casual approaches to legal proceedings and emphasizes the need for accountability and adherence to statutory limitations. The imposition of costs serves as a deterrent against wastage of judicial time and underscores the importance of respecting legal processes and timelines.