1988 (3) TMI 408 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The High Court thought that the State should not be penalised for the lapses of some of its officers and that in the particular circumstances there were sufficient grounds justifying the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It was a matter for the discretion of the High Court & we are unable to say that the discretion was improperly exercised.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
3. Government's Responsibility and Public Interest
4. Procedural Delays in Government Functioning
5. Discretion of the High Court

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were preferred against the High Court's order condoning delays in filing appeals by the Land Acquisition officer. The delays were substantial, with the appeals being lodged much later than the prescribed period. The High Court condoned these delays, which was challenged on the grounds of manifest error and lack of sufficient cause.

2. Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in accepting the explanation for the delays as 'sufficient cause'. They contended that the rights of successful parties should not be lightly interfered with unless it was established that the appeal could not have been lodged in time despite reasonable diligence. The Government's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the negligence of Government Pleaders, was deemed insufficient and aggravating the negligence.

3. Government's Responsibility and Public Interest:
The respondent's counsel argued that the Government was put in a predicament by its own law officers, and public interest suffered due to their bad faith and divided loyalties. The technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations promoting public interest and substantial justice. The High Court had already disposed of the appeals on merits, substantially reducing the compensation, making the present appeals against condonation of delay infructuous.

4. Procedural Delays in Government Functioning:
The High Court considered the chronological sequence of events and the protracted correspondence between the Government-Pleader and the Government. The High Court found that the Government was not negligent and that the conduct of the Government Pleader was extraordinary. The High Court observed that the Government could not anticipate the failure of the Government Pleader to perform elementary duties.

5. Discretion of the High Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the contours of discretion in condoning delays are set out in several pronouncements. The expression 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. In cases involving Government, procedural delays are inherent due to the decision-making process. The High Court exercised its discretion, considering the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to the Government. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion, noting that the Government should not be penalized for the lapses of some of its officers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to condone the delays, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in cases involving public interest and the inherent procedural delays in Government functioning. The appeals were dismissed without an order as to costs.