9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- (i) during the period for appeal, Collector was on long leave and the Collector holding additional charge was also transferred. (ii) this is a very important issue which has all India ramifications and it must be properly determined and should not be lost on a mere technical ground like late filing of appeal. (iii) differential practices treatment will arise if this issue is not resolved." Subsequently, a separate application was filed by the Collector for condonation of delay stating the following reasons :- During the period for appeal, the concerned Collector Sri Moheb Ali, Collector-II was on leave from 3-5-1993 to 18-6-1993. Sri A.K. Chabra, Collector-I was holding additional charge from 3-5-1993 to 21-5-1993. On transfer of Sri A.K. Chabra, Collector to Madras Sri R.K. Chakrabarti, Collector was holding addl. charge of Collector-II from 21-5-1993 to 31-5-1993 (The impugned order OIA No. 44/93 (H) CE appealed against in this case was passed by Sri R.K. Chakrabarti as Collector (Appeals). However, Sri S.V. Ramakrishnan has reported for duty on 31-5-1993 as Collector-II on his transfer from Bombay Collectorate. Shri S.V. Ramakrishnan, Collector-II was on tour fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d led to the delay in the filing of the appeal by the Collector. Such sufficiency is traceable to the complexity of the problem involved which was not free from doubt and in respect of which there were conflicting decisions from the different Courts and the Tribunal Benches. There was even a Supreme Court judgment as to the decisive factor to determine whether a medicine was exclusively used in the Ayurvedic system which had a bearing on the issue involved in the instant appeal but that was not in the knowledge of the department and was not referred to even in the appeal. This was in Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1450. The situation was fluid with divergent views on the subject. The fact that the matter was not free from doubt at that time constituted sufficient cause for the delay. In this connection, she referred to the Tribunal decision in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Gujarat State Fertilisers Corporation Limited reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 224 wherein it had been held by the Tribunal that the expression sufficient cause is sufficiently elastic to enable law being applied in a meaningful manner. It was observed that the system ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation which has been given contains no details of action taken on the matter to explain the reason for delay. It contains only a list of dates of the Collector s or the Principal Collector s tours. There is no report of the processing of the case and no movement of the papers has been indicated. The Collector who filed the appeal was in office from 31-5-1993 till 1-7-1993 when he went on tour. The Principal Collector was in Headquarters off and on and had been away on tour from 3-6-1993 to 9-6-1993, 14-6-1993 to 4-7-1993 and 7-7-1993 to 12-7-1993. There were days when both these officers were available together in Headquarters. Though, as cited by the other side, there are decisions condoning the delay on the part of Government in filing appeals etc., such decisions were taken in the facts of such cases. These are not the authority for a general proposition that just because the application for condonation of delay is by the Government, the delay should be condoned. In fact there are decisions to the contrary. Delays by Government have not been condoned in several cases some of which he cited. These are :- 1. 1986 (26) E.L.T. 639 - Collector of C. Ex., Meerut v. Hindustan Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. It was in these circumstances that the delay was condoned. The case was distinguishable from the present case. He reiterated his plea that the plea for condonation of delay may be dismissed. He opposed the alternative plea that in the event of the delay not being condoned the department s appeal be treated as a cross-objection as he submitted that this is not permissible. 4. Smt. Zutshi, learned Director of Publication gave a brief rejoinder to the reply given by the learned counsel opposing her plea for condonation of delay. She contended that the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the Wadhya Mal case fully supported the department s case. Here the impugned order-in-appeal challenged by the Collector was already under appeal to the Tribunal by the respondents, M/s. Procter and Gamble. That appeal is pending. During its pendency, the department has filed their appeal. That should be allowed to be heard on merits instead of dismissing it at the threshold stage on the ground of limitation. She concluded her rejoinder with the plea that the delay be condoned. She also reiterated her plea that in the event of the same not being allowed, the department s appeal be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of. There should obviously be some system or drill that such important matters are brought to the notice of a Collector taking up the post on transfer or of his ascertaining the same himself. During the period he was in Headquarters from 31-5-1993 to 1-7-1993 which also covered the pre-limitation period upto 15-6-1993, his office should have brought the matter to his notice and obtained his decision. If he or the Principal Collector was not available in the Headquarters, special efforts should have been taken to ensure that this time bound matter was completed and not left to lie over. In the absence of any information reported in the application as to what was the processing done in the matter about which there is no whisper therein, we cannot accept the plea based on a statement that a Collector took charge on a particular day and after about a month proceeded on tour for eleven days which tour was after limitation had expired. There is no indication that it was the very complexity of the matter that led to the delay because of factors like correspondence and consultation with experts etc. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that in a matter where admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Allahabad High Court against the Award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The delay which was not condoned by the Honourable High Court was condoned by the Honourable Supreme Court on appeal by him. It was held that as the award was under challenge in two appeals, it was just and proper that the appeal of Wadhya Mal may also be entertained and disposed of on merits alongwith the other two appeals. This decision was taken as apparently it was felt that the decision on the appeals filed by the respondents had a bearing on the appeal filed by Shri Wadhya Mal. That is not the case here. The appeal by the present respondents and the appellant Collector are in respect of different products. The decision on one is independent of that on the other. In the circumstances, there is no special reason to link the disposal of one appeal with the other. It is not a universal proposition that where an appeal is filed by one or more appellants and that appeal is pending the respondent or respondents are entitled to condonation of delay if they file their own appeals belatedly. Under the relevant statute applicable here, the respondents do get the opportunity to file cross-objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er examining the records, are not available and being on tour, it cannot be said that there are laches and negligence on their part. The appellants have exercised due diligence and care and have not acted in a manner calling for an inference of negligence. Where, the officers of the department concerned are entrusted with onerous tasks and have to control and supervise various responsibilities and in terms of such public duties, they are required to go on tour in public interest and on resumption of their duties have immediately signed the appeal memo, then in that circumstance, it cannot be said that the appellants. have not exercised due care. The appellants are not required to explain the reasons for not filing within the stipulated time, yet the appellants have assigned good reasons and show cause for not filing the appeal also during that period, i.e. the Collector had proceeded on leave and the Additional Collector was also transferred and the new Collector Shri S.V. Ramakrishnan took charge on 31-5-1993. As Hon ble Supreme Court has held that Courts should not take a pedantic view of the matter and sufficient latitude has to be given, where the explanation given is satisfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity does not deserve a litigant no grata status . In the case of Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh [1987 (32) E.L.T. 258], the Hon ble Supreme Court had observed as under : We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The law is now well settled by several decisions which have been cited before us (AIR 1962 Punjab 446) and (AIR 1956 Allahabad 677) as well as of this Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 215 that the Court while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will consider the facts and circumstances not for taking too strict and pendantic stand which will cause injustice but to consider it from the point of taking a view which will advance the cause of justice . In the case of Union of India v. N. Das R. Israni (1993 AIR SCW 2573), the Hon ble Supreme Court had ruled that the judicial power and discretion in the matter of condonation of delay should be exercised to advance substantial justice. After discussing their earlier decisions on the subject, the Hon ble Supreme Court held pragmatic approach may be called in aid to advance cause of public justice in particular when public exchequer is involved. 12. It is also seen that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
