9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the petition was barred by limitation of 90 days and no satisfactory explanation of such delay was shown. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay alone by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation [ 2015 (3) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT ], it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases involving State and its agencies while deciding the application for condonation of delay the fact that sufficient time is taken in decision making process of State can be taken note by Court but delay cannot be condoned as matter of course on ground that dismissal will cause injury to public interest when the delay is due to total lethargy or utter negligence of its officers. In case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. Amarnath Yadav [ 2014 (5) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT ] Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the delay of 481 days in filing the 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. Conclusion - No insufficient or plausible reason has been put forth by the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014, the information to that by Government Advocate to the Collector was given after inordinate delay of one year on 25/8/2015. A copy of the letter of Collector dated 10/12/2015 is filed with the application which shows that even after receiving the information by the Collector Katni, he has taken around four month's time to write a letter to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for filing appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, in this case Law and Legislative Affairs Department taken around three years time in deciding whether the appeal be filed against the impugned judgment and order or not ? The letter for giving the permission 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 decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the State and private individual or an institution when it has the need to establish sufficient cause. The doctrine of equality before law demands that the litigants including the State as the litigants are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. In considering the condonation of delay by the Government, the court should adopt a pragmatic approach. If the State fails to offer and explain sufficient cause, the delay may not be condoned. In the case of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi reported in AIR 1991 SC 933 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the petition was barred by limitation of 90 days and no satisfactory explanation of such delay was shown. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay alone by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation reported in AIR 2012 SC 1629, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases involving State and its agencies while deciding the application for condonation of delay the fact that sufficient time is taken in decision making process of State can be taken note by Court but delay cannot be condoned as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and 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 its negligence, after lapse of number of years. Legal rights of landloser should be protected and should not be sued beyond the prescribed period of limitation even if public purpose is involved in land acquisition, dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
