2018 (12) TMI 1959 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking condonation of delay of 2590 days in filing the application seeking restoration - only ground which has been urged for seeking condonation of delay is that the counsel appearing in the matter was elevated as a Judge of this Court and the department was not aware about the peculiar circumstances - HELD THAT - This averment is not bonafide as on account of the fact that the appellant cannot be compared to an illiterate litigant as cases of the appellant are looked after by the law department with law officers who monitors the cases. The LPA was filed in the year 2003. Thereafter, it was listed from time to time. Thus, in view of the settled principle of law, it is not satisfying with the explanation rendered by the applicant either in terms of seeking restoration of the appeal or condonation in filing the application for restoration. There are no ground to allow the present applications. Both the applications are thus dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application seeking restoration of writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution and condonation of delay of 2590 days.

Analysis:
1. The application sought restoration of a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, accompanied by an application for condonation of a 2590-day delay. The only ground for delay was the elevation of the counsel as a Judge, which the court found not bona fide due to the department's monitoring of cases handled by law officers.

2. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katijireported, the court emphasized equality before the law, stating that the State seeking condonation should not receive special treatment. The court highlighted the need for even-handed justice and criticized delays due to bureaucratic inefficiencies.

3. Citing the case of Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited, the court stressed that government departments must provide reasonable explanations for delays and not rely on procedural red-tape excuses. Failure to offer a cogent reason for a significant delay could lead to dismissal of appeals.

4. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation laws and ensuring justice for both parties. Negligence or lack of a reasonable explanation for delays could result in the dismissal of applications. The court must be persuaded of the truth and worthiness of the explanation for exercising judicial discretion.

5. Despite the LPA being filed in 2003 and listed periodically, the court found the explanations for restoration and delay condonation unsatisfactory based on established legal principles discussed. Consequently, both applications were dismissed, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.