2021 (1) TMI 1263 - SCH - Indian Laws

Maintainability of bail application - bail assailed on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - appeal has been filed after a delay of 405 days - HELD THAT - We have been repeatedly deprecating the practice of authorities coming before this Court after inordinate delays assuming as if the Law of Limitation does not apply to them. Repeatedly, reliance is placed on the judgments of vintage when technology was not easily available. No reference is made to the subsequent judgment in the Office of the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT which has dealt with the issue that consideration of the ability of the Government to file appeal in time would have to be dealt with in the context of the technology now available and merely shuffling files from one table to the other would no more be a sufficient reason. The irony is that despite our repeated orders, very little is done at least in taking action against concerned officers who sit on files and do nothing. The presumption is as if this Court will condone the delay for the asking. We refuse to follow such a course - it is considered appropriate to follow the same course of action in the present case and impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner to be recovered from the officers concerned. The cost be deposited in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks along with the certificate of recovery from the officers concerned. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against bail order in NDPS matter delayed by 405 days.
2. Failure to consider mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
3. Negligence in prosecuting the remedy.
4. Delay in filing special leave petition.
5. Practice of filing "certificate cases" to obtain dismissal certificate.
6. Imposition of costs for wasting judicial time.
7. Direction for recovery of costs from concerned officers.
8. Direction for remedial action by Director General, NCB.

1. Appeal Delay:
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition against a bail order in an NDPS matter due to a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal. The Court criticized the authorities for assuming that the Law of Limitation does not apply to them, emphasizing the need to consider the ability of the Government to file appeals in time given the current technological advancements. The Court refused to condone the delay and categorized such cases as "certificate cases" aimed at obtaining a dismissal certificate to avoid accountability. The Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner to be recovered from the officers concerned, directing the recovery to be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks.

2. Failure to Consider Requirements:
The appeal sought to challenge the bail order on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court highlighted the gross negligence on the part of concerned officers in prosecuting the remedy, citing delays in sending proposals, requesting additional documents, and holding meetings. The Court deplored the practice of authorities coming before the Court after inordinate delays and emphasized the importance of following appropriate legal processes in a timely manner.

3. Practice of "Certificate Cases":
The Court criticized the practice of filing "certificate cases" to obtain a dismissal certificate from the Supreme Court, noting that it is done to put an end to the issue without addressing the underlying concerns. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of action taken against officers who fail to follow legal processes promptly, emphasizing that merely shuffling files without valid reasons is unacceptable. The Court imposed costs for wasting judicial time and reiterated the need for accountability and adherence to legal procedures.

4. Direction for Remedial Action:
The Court directed the recovery of costs from the concerned officers and instructed that the amount be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund. Additionally, the Court ordered a copy of the order to be placed before the Director General, NCB for remedial action due to the recurring nature of such cases. The Court warned of consequential proceedings against the Director General in case of non-compliance with the directions provided.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition due to the significant delay in filing, imposed costs on the petitioner, highlighted the negligence in prosecuting the remedy, and emphasized the importance of following legal procedures diligently to avoid unnecessary delays and wastage of judicial time.