9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified copy thereof on 23.09.2008, which was forwarded by the tribunal on 09.09.2008. The appeal was required to be preferred on 20.03.2009 so as to be within limitation. However, the same was filed on 11.10.2011 resulting into delay of 933 days. 3. For explaining the delay, learned advocate for the applicant referred to and relied on the following averments made in paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 of the application: "4. The applicant submits that the Jr. Standing Counsel was allotted a specific assignment on account which he was unable to attend the Hon'ble High Court and therefore the Department had issued a communication to transfer the matters to another Standing Counsel. The matters sought to be transferred included this matter as well, howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, even while going by the said reason, the same at the best furnishes some explanation with regard to the initial stage only. Thereafter, there is a long lapse of period. No explanation for that has been forthcoming. 4.1 What really fails to convince the court is that the period of 933 days was whiled away. The case is that the Department had taken follow up action does not become acceptable in asmuch as it is not possible to fathom that for almost three years the affairs at the end of the Department remained at a standstill. If that be so, it was only a gross negligence. There cannot be any absolving excuse for the Department and the officers in charge for not taking the needful steps by pursuing the matter with the office of the advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally." 5.2 More recently in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan [2012] 5 SCC 157, the Supreme Court clarified the ambit of expression 'sufficient cause' and manner of its interpretation with reference to the object of the Limitation Act and also the extent of leniency to be shown in respect of plea for condonation of delay raised for the State instrumentalities. It was observed thus: "What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
