2015 (12) TMI 245 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 928 days - No information of disposal of appeal - Held that - Once the order, which was followed, has not attained finality and a batch of 107 appeals are already entertained by this Court and are pending as on date, the applicants are justified in filing the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and the delay, though is abnormal, is properly explained by stating that the learned counsel engaged, or his office, never informed the fact about the final order passed in the writ petition and after receiving notice on caveat, the applicants immediately approached the counsel for applying for the certified copy which was also not applied and thereafter through another counsel certified copy was applied and after receiving the same, appeal papers were made ready and the same was filed. The said explanation shows sufficient cause to condone the delay. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the applicants, by condoning the delay, the right of the respondent will not be affected as the order in its favour was passed by following an earlier order, which is in appeal as on date. - Delay condoned conditionally.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Justification for the delay.
3. Prejudice to the respondent due to the delay.
4. Legal precedents on condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Letters Patent Appeal:
The Union of India and the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, filed an application to condone a delay of 928 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against an order dated 04.05.2012. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by following an earlier order dated 23.12.2010 in OWP No.470/2008. The applicants argued that the issue involved is common and similar appeals are pending before the Court.

2. Justification for the Delay:
The applicants contended that the delay was due to the mistaken belief that their counsel was pursuing the matter diligently. They only became aware of the disposal of the writ petition upon receiving a caveat on 26.08.2011. Subsequent delays were attributed to the counsel's failure to act promptly, necessitating the engagement of another counsel and the subsequent preparation and filing of the appeal. The explanation provided was considered to show "sufficient cause" for the delay.

3. Prejudice to the Respondent Due to the Delay:
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicants were not diligent and that condoning the delay would cause prejudice as a right had accrued to the respondent after the limitation period. The respondent cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of showing bona fide and due diligence for condonation of delay.

4. Legal Precedents on Condonation of Delay:
The Court referred to several precedents, including:
- Ramlal and ors v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361) and Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and ors (2010) 8 SCC 685, which highlight the necessity of bona fide and due diligence.
- State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (2009) 13 SCC 192, where the Supreme Court condoned a delay of 6500 days, emphasizing substantial justice.
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582, which recognized that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities.
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V. Subrata Borah Chowlek (2010) 14 SCC 419, where the Supreme Court suggested a liberal approach in condoning delays for the State.
- Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpura Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, which outlined principles for condoning delays, emphasizing public justice.

The Court concluded that the explanation provided by the applicants constituted "sufficient cause" and that condoning the delay would not prejudice the respondent since the order in favor of the respondent was based on an earlier order still under appeal. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed automatically.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach in revenue matters and recognizing the procedural delays inherent in governmental functioning. The decision balanced the need for substantial justice with the procedural requirements, ensuring that the delay did not result in an irreparable loss of revenue for the government.