2024 (12) TMI 1011 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking condonation of delay of 404 days in filing the appeal - HELD THAT - It is clear that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 27.02.2023, but the file kept on moving from 03.04.2023 till 30.04.2024 from table to table and from officer to officer. It is not as if the applicant was not aware about the period for filing the Letters Patent Appeal, yet a delay of 404 days occurred in filing the appeal from the date of the order and receiving of certified copy of the Judgment. It thus appears that the applicant has adopted a very lethargic attitude in the matter of filing the Letters Patent Appeal and has been negligent in that regard. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the stand/explanation given by the appellant, it is opined that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the huge period of delay in filing the appeal; accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against judgment dated 27.02.2023 in W.P.(S) No.5725 of 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking condonation of a 404-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment dated 27.02.2023 in W.P.(S) No.5725 of 2017. The applicant attributed the delay to various bureaucratic processes and the need for opinions from different departments. The delay was not adequately explained, with the file moving between officers and departments for over a year. The court noted the lethargic attitude of the applicant in filing the appeal and referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing diligence in prosecuting legal matters. The court highlighted the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for delays, especially when the government is a party. The judgment cited the principle that impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology cannot justify delays in the modern technological era. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, stating that sufficient cause was not shown to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed, and any pending applications were closed.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of diligence in legal proceedings, especially concerning delays in filing appeals. It emphasizes that bureaucratic processes and machinery cannot serve as excuses for significant delays, particularly when dealing with legal matters. The court's decision to dismiss the application and the appeal itself was based on the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay, aligning with the principle that substantial justice requires timely and diligent legal actions.