The present civil application has been filed by the applicants under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on the grounds stated in the application, inter alia, the procedural delay in getting necessary approvals after following the Law Officers Rule.
2. Heard learned AGP Ms. Trusha Mehta for the applicants.
3. However, as could be seen from the grounds mentioned in the application, the judgment and award in the aforesaid Reference was pronounced 25.4.2008. Certified copy of the judgment and award was applied on 1.5.2008 and it was ready for delivery on 30.5.2008. Thereafter it has been moved without any sense of responsibility, and as it could be seen, though the file was forwarded to the Legal Department in march 2011, the decision was taken in May 2011 and ultimately the papers were received by the Government Pleader, High Court, on 11.10.2011.
4. Therefore, what is required to be considered is weather sufficient cause can be said to have been made out. Considering the aforesaid explanation, it cannot be said that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has considered what would constitute sufficient cause and what could be the test to be applied in such matters of condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 has observed as to what should be the approach and observation has been made that sufficient cause should be elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner. It does not justify exercise of such discretion in the present case as the explanation offered cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria or the test for the sufficient cause.
5. Therefore, as no sufficient cause has been made out, the present application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected.
6. In view of the order passed in the civil application refusing to condone the delay, the present First Appeal also stands dismissed.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top