9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under section 29(1) of the Act filed by the applicant is barred by 27 days. Initially, no application was filed by the applicant to condone the delay. When the matter came up for hearing on admission, the applicant prayed for time. Ultimately, an application I. A. No. 275/1986 was filed on January 16, 1986, which was supported by an affidavit of the upper division clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The matter came before this court for hearing on August 21, 1987. After hearing counsel, this court directed the applicant to furnish necessary details and particulars regarding the date on which the special leave petition before the Supreme Court was filed and when it was detected that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the High Court is delivered in case stated under section 27 of the Act, in that case, if the High Court certifies it as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any confusion in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court without first approaching the High Court for a certificate. Moreover, all litigants including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with note-makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to furnish particulars but the applicant failed to supply the particulars and insisted upon submitting that in the matters of the Government, a strict view should not be taken. We are not satisfied with this submission of learned counsel for the applicant. Government or an authority cannot be given preferential treatment than an ordinary litigant and the Government was bound to explain each day's delay. Moreover, if the Department acted on the advice of some senior official or counsel, the Department at least ought to have filed an affidavit to that effect but as no affidavit has been filed, it cannot be said that the Department acted bona fide or that sufficient cause to condone the delay has been made out. In the result, this petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
