9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e condoned. The impugned judgment and decree was passed on 21/8/2014 and Collector Katni has been intimated on 25/8/2015 by Public Prosecutor thereafter Collector Katni written a letter to the State on 10/12/2015 seeking permission to file an appeal and the permission was granted on 26/10/2018 by the Law and Legislative Department Bhopal thereafter, the intimation was given to the concerned Collector on 31/10/2018 and this appeal is filed on 18/10/2019. This application is supported by an affidavit of Balweer Singh and the copies of the correspondence have also appended with this application. 3. The application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is a delay of more than six years and delay is not properly explained. Day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission to file appeal was issued not before 20/6/2018. Under the permission, this appeal is filed on 18/10/2019. So there is an enormous delay in filing this appeal of 1788 days which was to be explained satisfactorily by the appellant. 8. The appellant in this regard placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh and others vs. Union of India and another reported in (2023)10 SCC 531. The relevant para no. 30,31 and 32 are important and reads as under :- "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication." 9. The words "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 cannot be liberally construed only because the party in default is the Government. Section 5 makes no distinction between the State and private individual or an institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special leave petition has held that moving of file from one department/officer to the other is not sufficient reason for condoning such an abnormal delay. Para 2 of this judgment is relevant and reproduced as under :- "2. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors.vs. Living Media India Ltd.; (2012) 3 SCC 563 has deprecated such practices on the part of the government authorities/departments in the following words (SCC pp.573-74, paras 27-30) "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 11. In case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and anr. reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that respondent/applicant State cannot take advantage of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay." 13. In the case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745 Hon. Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 916 days by the appellant. 14. As discussed earlier that the initial information regarding passing of judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was given delayed by the Government Advocate to the Collector after a lapse of more than one year. Thereafter, inordinate delay was caused on different stages. No insufficient or plausible reason has been put forth by the State which can be said to be satisfactory and which can be deemed as sufficient cause. Since the inordinate delay of 1788 days has not been explained s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
