2023 (2) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 737 days in filing civil appeal - Revenue appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - it is stated that on acting upon the opinion of the Advocate of the Department a mail was sent to the DGT headquarters which took two months to respond - HELD THAT - This is certainly not a sufficient cause to condone the delay but an endeavor to save the back of the officers who did not work when they were so expected to work. It is clear wastage of judicial time and thus we must follow the same path as followed earlier and dismiss the application for condonation of delay with a costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the Supreme Court Group C (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay. Consequently, the civil appeals are dismissed as time barred.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing civil appeal, condonation of delay, wastage of judicial time, dismissal of appeal as time-barred.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of delay in filing a civil appeal, seeking condonation of the delay. The appellant, the Government of India, sought to file the appeal with a delay of 737 days. The Court analyzed the timeline provided by the appellant to explain the delay, highlighting various dates and actions taken by the department, including communication delays and seeking legal advice. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the department's lack of promptness in prosecuting the case, criticizing the approach of considering the Supreme Court as an easily accessible forum. The Court emphasized the need to explain delays within the parameters set by previous judgments. Referring to the case law, the Court refused to entertain the appeal as a mere formality to conclude the matter without holding delinquent officers accountable for the delay. The Court compared this case to previous judgments and decided to dismiss the appeal as time-barred, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay. The Court clarified that the dismissal based on limitation did not involve an examination of the merits of the case. A certificate of recovery was ordered to be filed within two months, and the order was to be presented before the concerned Secretary to the Government of India.