2018 (9) TMI 748 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 529 days in filing appeal - failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time i.e. 19.05.2016 - Held that - If the State is suffering on account of negligence of its officers then it must bring on record action having been taken against such delinquent officers. Nothing has been shown to us that the State has taken action against the officer concerned - there is no reason to condone the delay for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Notice of Motion stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a Notice of Motion to set aside a self-operating order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court.

Analysis:
1. The Motion sought condonation of a 529-day delay in filing the Notice of Motion to set aside the order rejecting the appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules for failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time.
2. The affidavit in support of the Motion highlighted inadvertent office objections remaining unresolved post the order, a change in the panel of advocates, and the appellant being a statutory government authority with a good chance of success in the appeal.
3. The affidavit failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, lacking specifics on when the appellant learned of the rejection order. The reasons cited, including a change in advocates and being a government authority, were deemed unsatisfactory.
4. The Court noted a casual attitude from revenue officers post-engaging advocates, referencing a similar observation in a prior tax case, emphasizing the responsibility of officials in pursuing legal matters diligently.
5. The Court rejected the argument that the government, as an impersonal entity, should not suffer due to officer negligence, citing a Supreme Court case emphasizing the need for plausible explanations for delays and rejecting mechanical condonations.
6. Emphasizing the obligation of government bodies to perform duties diligently, the Court found no evidence of action taken against the negligent officer in this case, leading to the dismissal of the Motion without condoning the delay.
7. The Court's decision to dismiss the Notice of Motion was based on the lack of satisfactory explanations for the delay and the failure to demonstrate action against the responsible officer, highlighting the need for diligence in government departments.
8. The Motion was dismissed without any order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal timelines and obligations without expecting leniency for government entities.