9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him. Relying upon Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others [2001 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME Court] - The Court said that u/s 5 of Act, 1963 it should adopt a pragmatic approach - A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days - In the former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach – Here, if delay has occurred for reasons which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should be reluctant to refuse condonation, will not help the petitioner in any manner since it is found that here is a case which shows a complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of applicant, which has remained virtually unexplained at all - Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to exercise judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify condonation of delay in the present case. Since it is contended that issue rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who returned the file vide letter dated 29.4.2013 in original to State Representative, Varanasi. State Representative, Varanasi vide letter dated 27.5.2013 thereafter requested Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 7, Varanasi to file revision, who vide letter dated 26.6.2013 returned the file to State Representative, Varanasi that the file is not under the jurisdiction of the Sector. Thereafter, Joint Commissioner (Executive), Range B, Varanasi vide letter dated 24.7.2013 directed the deponent of affidavit and vide letter dated 19.9.2013, handed over all the documents to the deponent to file revision and then this revision has been filed after more than three months even thereafter. 2. It is true that when State is a party, and file appeal/revision, as the case may be, with some delay, it may deserve some leverage for official hierarchical steps for permission etc. but a wholly unexplained, reckless and negligent approach of delay running in more than one years cannot be overlooked particularly when it is not the case of applicants that they have taken any action against erring individual. 3. The expression sufficient cause in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government. 6. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said: Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him. 9. I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on construing sufficient cause under Section 5 of Act, 1963 and it would be suffice to refer a very few of them besides those already referred. 10. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 a three Judge Bench of the Court said, that, unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. 11. The Privy Council in Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly been referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
