2021 (1) TMI 1171 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 502 days - explanation given in the application for condonation of delay which gives only a saga of moving of file from one place to the other and that too with long interludes - HELD THAT - 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. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. 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(s) 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 - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition, imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time

In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition, where the petitioner sought condonation of a 502-day delay. The Court noted the explanation provided for the delay, which highlighted the movement of files between different places with long interludes. The Court criticized the casual approach of the petitioner, attributing the delay to lethargy and incompetence without any substantial grounds for condonation. The Court emphasized that State Governments and public authorities should not disregard the limitation period prescribed by statutes. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that leniency previously shown due to technological limitations no longer applies. The Court observed a trend of filing "certificate cases" solely to obtain closure from the Supreme Court without addressing the underlying issues, leading to a waste of judicial time. The Court refused to grant such certificates and imposed costs of ?25,000 on the petitioner for the wastage of judicial time, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court directed the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay and required a certificate of recovery to be filed within the same period. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as time-barred due to the delay. Additionally, the Court directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh, cautioning against non-compliance, which could lead to appropriate proceedings against the Chief Secretary.