2021 (7) TMI 474 - SC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Revenue appeal - the delay was unexplained - HELD THAT - We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. 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. The amount to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the same period of time - Appeal is dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing a Civil Appeal.
2. Approach of State Governments and public authorities in filing appeals.
3. Imposition of costs for wastage of judicial time.
4. Refusal to grant certificates in "certificate cases."
5. Lack of accountability for officers responsible for delays.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court examined an application for condonation of delay in filing a Civil Appeal. The Court noted that the delay of 350 days out of 1134 days was unexplained, indicating a casual approach by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the period of limitation and discouraged entities from assuming they can approach the Court at their convenience, citing previous judgments to support this stance.

2. The Court criticized the tendency of State Governments and public authorities to file appeals in a lackadaisical manner, disregarding statutory limitations. It referred to previous cases where leeway was granted due to technological constraints, but clarified that such leniency is no longer applicable. The Court highlighted the need for these entities to face consequences for delays, especially when they penalize others for similar lapses.

3. In response to the casual manner in which the application was handled and the significant delay, the Court decided to impose costs of ?25,000 on the petitioner for the wastage of judicial time. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit this amount with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. Additionally, the Court mandated the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay, emphasizing accountability.

4. The Court addressed the practice of filing "certificate cases" solely to obtain closure from the Supreme Court without addressing underlying issues. It condemned this approach as a mere formality to protect defaulting officers, refusing to grant such certificates. The Court reiterated the need for accountability and consequences for responsible officers rather than mild warnings.

5. Lastly, the Court underscored the lack of action taken against officers responsible for delays, emphasizing the need for accountability. It directed the order to be presented to the relevant authorities to prevent future delays and to conduct an inquiry into the responsible parties. Ultimately, the Civil Appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to the delay in filing, and the Court emphasized the importance of timely and responsible legal actions.