9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part. This Court further, is of the view that the bona fide approach of the Government would have been, if the delay condonation application would have made with the specific date about movement of file from one table to another but even then, it cannot be expected from the State authority to take time of 568 days in filing the appeal while it is known to everybody that the intra-court appeal is to be filed within the period of 30 days - when the State authorities are knowing about the period of limitation which is only for 30 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even if, they are acting in a lethargic manner, the same cannot be said to be a bona fide approach on the part of the State. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nel to the Administrative Department for preparing a review application. But review application could not have been filed, rather decision was taken to file an appeal against the impugned order, as such, file was again returned back to the office of the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department and from there, it was again sent to the office of the learned Advocate General for legal opinion. This time the learned Advocate General has given opinion to file an appeal before this Court and accordingly, the appeal was filed after inordinate delay of 568 days. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently argued that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. 9. It is settled position of Law that when a litigant does not act with bona fide motive and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part, the period of limitation for filing the appeal expires, such lack of bona fide and gross inaction and negligence are the vital factors which should be taken into consideration while considering the question of condonation of delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat through Secretary Anr. Vrs. Kanubhai Kantilal Rana, 2013 SCC Online Guj. 4202, wherein, at pargraph-17, it has been held that Law having prescribed a fixed period of limitation of 30 days for preferring the appeal, the Government cannot ignore the provisions of the period of limitation as it was never the intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Apex Court in Post Master General Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Limited Anr., (supra) has held at paragraphs 1 to 5 as hereunder: 1.The State of Madhya Pradesh continues to do the same thing again and again and the conduct seems to be incorrigible. The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 588 days. We had an occasion to deal with such inordinately delayed filing of the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh in State of M.P. v. Bherulal [State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654] in terms of our order dated 15-10-2020. 2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. On 5-1-2019, it is stated that the Government Advocate was approached in respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 [Chaitram Maywade v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632] and the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of incompetence would there be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it. In this connection we may point out that considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the court is dealing with applications made under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with such applications the court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Sections 5 and 14. Therefore, in our opinion, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of Section 14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with applications which fall to be decided only under Section 5 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953] , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR 2012 SC 1629] .) 10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] this Court explained the difference between a good cause and a sufficient cause and observed that every sufficient cause is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of sufficient cause . 11. The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 907] .) 14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830 : AIR 2002 SC 1856] this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93 : AIR 1992 SC 1701] . 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from there and when it was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General. Thereafter, the opinion, although, was furnished to file a review but no such review has been preferred, rather, the statement has been made that the department has decided to file an appeal against the impugned order and for that purpose again the file was returned back to the office of the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand from the office of the Government Pleader and again, it was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General for legal opinion, wherein, opinion was furnished to file an appeal. But none of the statement, the reference of any date has been made, rather a vague statement has been furnished showing the movement of file from one table to another or from one department to another, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 568 days in filing the appeal. Thus, it is evident that whatever explanation has been furnished, which is after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 17.04.2018 which was obtained on 23.07.2019 but no explanation is there from 17.04.2018, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
