2015 (7) TMI 666 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay of 1298 days - Bonafide belief that appeal has been withdrawn - Held that - explanation given for the delay is absolutely vague. Secondly, it does not inspire any confidence simply because the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court was delivered in February 2011. That a statutory or a public body was unaware of the legal position, which has been summarized in the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court 2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court , for more than 3 years, cannot be a ground to condone the delay. That is, therefore, a general explanation and stated to be peculiar to public bodies which is consisting and comprising of officials who do not have any personal interest but are indifferent and negligent in discharge of the duties. For this very reason the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot be treated as a special litigant. It has no right in seeking condonation of delay by putting forward such grounds or reasons. The delay in this case is enormous. None has come forward to own the responsibility and to pin point any lapse and specifically on their part, far from setting out the period during which such lapse of inaction occurred. Nothing of this nature has not been set out. No explanation is forthcoming as to where and with whom the files were pending and it was whole responsibility to take a decision to institute these proceedings. For all these reasons, the explanation for the delay cannot be termed as reasonable and bona-fide. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing a statutory Appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a Notice of Motion for condonation of delay of 1298 days in filing a statutory Appeal by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The company had initially filed an Appeal challenging an order but later withdrew it with liberty to file a fresh Appeal upon obtaining clearance from the Department of the Government of India. The reason for withdrawal was based on the belief that the matter should be resolved out of Court due to both parties being Government/Semi Government bodies. However, a subsequent order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that Inter Departmental Dispute Resolution Mechanism cannot deprive parties of their statutory and legal rights. The Appellant claimed unawareness of this legal position until September 2014, leading to the delay in approaching the Court again, as the Supreme Court's order was passed in February 2011.

The Court found the explanation for the delay to be vague and lacking in credibility. It noted that being unaware of the legal position for over 3 1/2 years cannot be a valid ground to condone the delay, especially for a public body. The judgment emphasized that public bodies, despite comprising officials with no personal interest, cannot be negligent in discharging their duties. The Court highlighted that the Government cannot seek condonation of delay by putting forward such reasons, especially when the delay is substantial. No specific responsibility was taken by anyone for the delay, and no lapse or inaction was pinpointed. The Court concluded that the explanation for the delay was neither reasonable nor bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion without any costs being awarded.