2021 (5) TMI 886 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - time limitation - High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - 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 Chief Post Master General Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. Anr. 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. We have been imposing costs for wasting judicial time in such matters which are filed with this oblique motive of saving the officers. We thus, consider appropriate to follow the same action in the present case and impose costs of ₹ 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. Failure to consider mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a bail order appeal.
2. Delay in filing the appeal.
3. Practice of authorities coming before the Court after inordinate delays.
4. Categorization of cases as "certificate cases" and imposing costs for wasting judicial time.
5. Imposition of costs on the petitioner and directing recovery from concerned officers.
6. Directing remedial action by the Director General, NCB for similar cases.

Issue 1: Failure to consider mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a bail order appeal

The Supreme Court addressed a bail order appeal in an NDPS matter where the petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's decision, citing a failure to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court noted that the appeal was filed after a significant delay of 607 days, raising concerns about the negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the concerned officers in prosecuting the remedy.

Issue 2: Delay in filing the appeal

The Court highlighted the delays in the filing process, noting that despite the proposal to file the special leave petition being sent on various dates, including 6-2-2019 and 26-2-2019, the necessary documents were only submitted on 16-7-2019. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided for the delays, emphasizing the need for timely and efficient legal processes.

Issue 3: Practice of authorities coming before the Court after inordinate delays

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the recurring practice of authorities approaching the Court after significant delays, seemingly disregarding the Law of Limitation. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the advancement in technology and the need for prompt action, referencing a judgment that highlighted the government's ability to file appeals in a timely manner in the current technological context.

Issue 4: Categorization of cases as "certificate cases" and imposing costs for wasting judicial time

The Court categorized such cases as "certificate cases," where the objective is to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to conclude the matter. The Court expressed concern over the lack of accountability for officers responsible for delays and reiterated the need to take action against those who fail to follow legal processes promptly. The Court emphasized that merely seeking condonation of delay without valid reasons would not be accepted.

Issue 5: Imposition of costs on the petitioner and directing recovery from concerned officers

In response to the delays and the oblique motives behind certain appeals, the Court imposed costs of ?25,000 on the petitioner. The Court directed the recovery of these costs from the officers concerned and mandated the deposit of the amount in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks, along with a certificate of recovery from the officers.

Issue 6: Directing remedial action by the Director General, NCB for similar cases

The Court directed the placement of the order before the Director General of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for remedial action, considering the recurrence of similar cases. The Court warned of consequential proceedings against the Director General in case of non-compliance with the directive. This step aimed to address the systemic issues leading to delays and inefficiencies in handling such cases.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition due to the delay in filing, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal timelines and the need for accountability in the legal process. The Court's decision to impose costs on the petitioner and direct remedial action by the Director General of NCB underscored the significance of efficient and timely legal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.