2022 (1) TMI 1440 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 568 days in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis. It is settled position of Law that when a litigant does not act with bona fide motive and at the same time due to inaction and laches on its part the period of limitation for filing the appeal expires such lack of bona fide and gross inaction and negligence are the vital factors which should be taken into consideration while considering the question of condonation of delay. Thus it is evident that while considering the delay condonation application the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time due to inaction and laches on its part. This Court further is of the view that the bona fide approach of the Government would have been if the delay condonation application would have made with the specific date about movement of file from one table to another but even then it cannot be expected from the State authority to take time of 568 days in filing the appeal while it is known to everybody that the intra-court appeal is to be filed within the period of 30 days - when the State authorities are knowing about the period of limitation which is only for 30 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even if they are acting in a lethargic manner the same cannot be said to be a bona fide approach on the part of the State. This Court therefore is of the view that the explanation which has been furnished by the State appellant in the delay condonation application cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay.
2. Legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was barred by an inordinate delay of 568 days. The appellants filed an application (I.A. No. 11277 of 2019) to condone this delay, citing procedural steps and bureaucratic processes as reasons for the delay. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" and referred to several precedents, including Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351, and Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, which stress that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government, and that condonation of delay should not be granted mechanically.

The Court noted that the appellants failed to provide specific dates or sufficient explanations for the delay in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order and the subsequent bureaucratic processes. The Court found the explanation to be vague and insufficient to justify the inordinate delay, emphasizing that the State authorities should have acted with due diligence, knowing that the intra-court appeal must be filed within 30 days. Consequently, the delay condonation application was dismissed.

Legality and Propriety of the Impugned Order:
Given the dismissal of the delay condonation application, the Court did not proceed to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit. The instant intra-court appeal was dismissed as a result.

Conclusion:
The delay condonation application (I.A. No. 11277 of 2019) was dismissed due to insufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 568 days. Consequently, the intra-court appeal was also dismissed. The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 5510 of 2021) was dismissed as well.