9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned SDR, has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has reiterated the contention made in the application for condonation of delay and the statement explaining the reasons for delay with a list of dates starting from 1976 to 11-4-1985. Shri Tripathi, SDR, has pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. He has further pleaded that things always take some time in the Government Department and the Bench should consider the application for condonation of delay liberally. In support of his arguments he has cited a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh and Others reported in 1983 ECR 1556 where the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that the departmental authorities charged with the duty to implement the law should be vigilant, but one aspect cannot be overlooked that a departmental authority may delay moving of the higher court for oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which is also explainable. These are relevant considerations which must enter a judicial verdict before rejecting such case on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. Shri R.C. Bhalla, the learned Advocate, has pleaded for rejection of the application for condonation of delay. 4. In reply, Shri B.R. Tripathi, the learned SDR, has pleaded that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that each and every case has to be judged in its own way. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case we would like to observe that the discretion in condoning the delay can only be exercised in favour of the party in case the appellant is able to satisfy the court that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In the present matter before us the order in appeal was communicated to the appellant on 12-4-1985. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 55B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 every appeal has to be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Letter calling for the files to Assistant Collector, MOD-I, New Delhi was dispatched on 7.5.85. 8. The Division Office was reminded twice on 22-5-1985 and on 11-6-1985 but the file was not received. A D.O. reminder dated 21-6-85 was also sent to the Assistant Collector, MOD-I, New Delhi. 9. The Assistant Collector, MOD-I, New Delhi vide his letter C. No. V(14D)13/3/79/Pt./5291 dated 26-6-1985 received on 28.6.85 intimated that files are lying with the Collector (Appeals), a copy of the same was endorsed to the Collector (Appeals) s office also. 10. On 3-7-1985 relevant case files were procured from the Collector (Appeals) s office. 11. Files were put up to the Assistant Collector (Judicial) and same were put up to the Additional Collector on 3-7-1985. 12. Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Faridabad was holding the additional charge of the Additional Collector s Central Excise, New Delhi and he was preoccupied with the work relating to the Collector s Conference (North Zone) which was to be held on 16th and 17th of July, 1985. Hence there was unavoidable delay due to this reason. 13. Draft appeal was recommended for approval on 18.7.85 by the Additional Collector. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the principle of judicial circumspection and has to be applied wisely. And look at the facts-situation. The explanation for the delay offered was convincing and acceptable. Further, the State of U.P. had preferred a writ petition against the decision of the appellate authority under the U.P. Agricultural Land Ceiling Law. In the proceedings under such a law there are no two parties as is the case in a litigation between two private parties wherein each would be prosecuting and watching the proceedings regularly. In a proceeding under land ceiling law, the departmental authority has to be apprised of an adverse decision, and further decision has to be taken whether the case is one required to be taken to the higher court. Not that the departmental authorities charged with a duty to implement the law should not be vigilant, but one aspect cannot be overlooked that a departmental authority may delay the moving of the higher court for oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which is also explainable. These are relevant consideration which must enter a judicial verdict before rejecting such cause on the ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or a private party, the provisions of law .applicable are the same, unless the statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gainsaid that the same consideration that will be shown by courts to a private party when he claims the protection of S.5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the state." Shri R.C. Bhalla, the learned Advocate, had cited a judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 which had laid down the principles for the condonation of delay. Headnote (b) from the said judgment is reproduced below:- (b) Limitation Act (1908), S. 5 - Principles : In construing S. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e government which in similar circumstances is not to be shown to an individual suiter. If it is felt that the Government departments delay matters so much that the periods of limitation already prescribed in the Limitation Act viz. 3 months is not long enough for the government or its agents, then the better course is to obtain amendment of the law through the legislature rather than to make an application to the court, invoking its power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are of opinion that such delays in Government offices are no justification for invoking the power of the court under Section 5 and would not amount to sufficient cause. Nevertheless, we have to take a practical view of the working of government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion processes of its wheels. (Are we not painfully aware of the public criticism of delays in courts and apprehensive of a possible rebuke, physician, heal thyself?). When an appeal is pending, attention of counsel is usually drawn to the questions arising therein when it is posted for hearing. Quite probably, after the Full Bench decision was reported, the land acquisition appeals affected by that ruling were posted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
