9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IVIL APPLICATION NO. 125 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 783 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 137 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 810 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 969 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 155 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 995 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 177 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 1157 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 180 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 1160 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 181 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 1165 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 182 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 1166 of 2012 MR.VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI AND MR. N.V.ANJARIA, JJ. KABIR HATHI & TRUSHA MEHTA, AGP FOR THE APPELLANT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) The above captioned applications filed by the State of Gujarat constitute a group. All these applications pray for condonation of delay occasioned of respective days in preferring the respective appeals. The pleadings in all are similar, and the ground for delay is nearly identical. As the grounds for condonation are similar, all these applications have been considered and heard together, and are being disposed of by this order simultaneously. 1.1 In all the cases, delay h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating that after the impugned order dated 30.06.2006, certified copy was received 15.11.2006. The proposal was thereafter made to the Legal Department and the Legal Department by its letter dated 26.11.2007, granted permission to challenge the Tribunal's order, which was received on 30.11.2007. The papers for filing appeal were sent to the office of Government Pleader on 07.03.2008. Thereafter, the papers were lost and misplaced as per the averments. These averments were followed by contents of paragraph No. 4 in furtherance. 3.2 Besides the explanation of above nature, further ground is urged in paragraph No.4 in all the applications in common, which is as under. "4. The Applicant submits that as there was heavy Drafting work load in the office of the Learned Government Pleader and less member of Assistant Government Pleader and Stenographers to do the Drafting work, the captioned Tax Appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of limitation. The applicant further submits that due to shortage of Stenographers in the office of the Learned Government Pleader the said office had also requested the applicant Department to Provide a Separate Stenographer, with a view to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the applicant, and the State cannot be shown any latitude on a spacious ground of `administrative reasons', especially when no sufficient cause has been made out. 5. From the contents of averments in the application seeking to explain the delay, it is seen that the delay is sought to be explained with two fold sets of grounds. Firstly, it is urged by showing the movement of papers in the decision making process, ultimately leading to filing of appeal, that the procedure in the Government machinery which takes decision consumed the time. It is also the case that files were lost in the process. The second set of explanation is furnished by way of paragraph No. 4 quoted above, which is commonly pleaded in all the applications. It is contended therein that because of less number of Assistant Government Pleaders and Stenographers in the office of Government Pleader, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of limitation as there was heavy work load of drafting. 5.1 Furnishing of 'sufficient cause' is a condition precedent, before which delay cannot be condoned. It is true that sufficient cause wouild be ordinarily construed in liberal manner. However, liberal approa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest. 5.5 In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay Vs. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay [1994 Supp (2) SCC 603], the Apex Court refused to condone the delay of 264 days in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government, where the ground urged for delay was the time taken in movement of documents between the office concerned and the counsel. It was stated that the Advocate-on-Record got the Special Leave Petition drafted from the drafting advocate, and thereafter sent it to the Board for approval, which was returned by the Board, and again resent it, and ultimately, the Special Leave Petition was filed after the draft was approved. Holding that this explanation was incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay, it was observed, "There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everyb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved to caution, "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." (para 29) 6. Measured by the parameters of law for condoning delay highlighted above, in the instant cases, where the State Government prays for condonation of delay, the delay is as high as 632 to 2067 days. From the averments, which are similar and almost identical in offering explanation for delay in all cases, it is seen that the files were sent to the Legal/Finance Department for getting sanction to file an appeal. The files remained lay there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
