2005 (9) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se circumstances, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. The application is thus dismissed.
Judge(s) : D. K. SETH., MAHARAJ SINHA. JUDGMENT This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay has been sought to be explained in the manner stated in paragraph 6 of the application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay has been sufficiently explained and he had taken us through the statements made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 and various paragraphs in the application and prayed that the delay be condoned. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out that there is delay of about 458 days and that the delay has not bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... law from time to time in order to cut short the period and expedite the process and avoid delay. But such attempt of the Legislature has not been reflected in the attitude of the Department who themselves are responsible for the delay. This also cuts in two ways. Apart from the appeal being decided directly, the application for condonation of delay consumes a considerable time and also prevents the court from dealing with appeals straightaway and keeps the court busy with applications for condonation of delay, which can easily be avoided by the Department. According to him, at the one hand the Department itself is responsible for the delay and committing the delay and then throwing the blame on the courts for the delay being oblivious of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onths had passed for the Ministry of Law to wake up to inform the Department that the papers submitted were illegible and to request for legible copies and the Department took one month to send legible copies when the period for filing the appeal had already expired and it took almost two months to scrutinise the papers and arrange the stamp paper by the Department, namely, on May 4, 2004, for filing the appeal on May 6, 2004. This has been sought to be explained in the form of a list of dates, a very slip-shod method and no responsible officer appears to have taken the responsibility as to why this delay occurring in its own Department and the affidavit has been affirmed by an inspector in such a serious case. In these circumstances, we d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X