9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in its favour was passed by following an earlier order, which is in appeal as on date. - Delay condoned conditionally. - CDLOW No. 08 OF 2014 AND LPAOW No. 19 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2015 - Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice And Mr. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, J For the Petitioner : Mr. V. K. Magoo, Sr. CGSC For the Respondent : Mr.Subash Dutt, Advocate and Mr. Suraj S. Wazir, Advocate ORDER N. Paul Vasanthakumar, CJ 1. This application is filed by Union of India as well as the Commissioner, Customs Central Excise, seeking to condone the delay of 928 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 04.05.2012 made in OWP.No.1209/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by following an earlier order made in OWP No.470/2008 which was decided on 23.12.2010 and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the said earlier judgment dated 23.12.2010. 2. The contention of the applicants is that the issue involved in the appeal is common in nature and 107 Letters Patent Appeals, which were filed by the applicants-appellants on the same issue in respect of other parties, are pending befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment will lose revenue and, therefore, a pragmatic view may be taken by this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel that by condoning the delay the respondent will not be put to any prejudice as the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by following an earlier order and the same has not attained finality. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand opposed the application and contended that after the date of period of limitation a right has accrued to the respondent and if the delay is condoned, prejudice will be caused to the respondent. He has relied on AIR 1962 SC 361, Ramlal and ors v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd and (2010) 8 SCC 685, Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and ors in support of his contention and prayed for dismissing the application. 6. We have paid our anxious attention to the pleadings as well as the points raised, argued and the decisions cited. 7. It is not in dispute that the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge by following an earlier order made in OWP No.470/2008 dated 23.12.2010. No independent order giving factual finding was passed by the learned Single Judge. Once the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal order, wherein it has been held as follows: 21. The case at hand is a classic example where the circumstances are the same. More than 4000 acres of land are involved out of which, according to the State, nearly 3500 acres constitute forest land. Ultimately, the Court has to protect the public justice. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skilful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable. 22. The expression sufficient cause as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this Court in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, ((1988) 2 SCC 142) Paras 16-17 of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC pp. 148-49) 16. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental Authorities. Government, like any other litigant, must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 15. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 (14) SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 11. In State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe, it was held that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath, it was held that the Appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Article 136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and the case was remitted for decision on merits. 12. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, a Bench of Three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, a Bench of Two Judges considered the question of limitation in an Appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventurate there is no real failure of justice. .. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 13. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in a decision reported in 2011 (3) CTC 337 (The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai v. M.S.A.Ibrahim) condoned the delay of 3081 days in filing the appeal against the decree passed by the subordinate Court, following the decision cited in paragraph 10 above. The said decision was challenged before Hon ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) no. 12175/2011 and by order dated 09.05.2011 the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. 14. In Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788, Hon ble the Supreme Court held that once a person engages his counsel, his botheration goes and it is the duty of the counsel to take care of the case. It has been held as follows:- 3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
