ORDER M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
1. This appeal has been filed beyond time by one year and one hundred and 84 days. The impugned judgment of the reference court was delivered on 4.12.1998 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. This appeal has been filed on 18.9.2000 along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act.
2. In the affidavit along with the aforesaid application it is stated that information about the judgment dated 4.12.1998 was received from the D.G.C. (Civil) in the office of the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr on 28.12.1998. A letter dated 30.12.1998 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to D.G.C. (Civil) for certified copy of the judgment and decree, and also for a legal opinion. The opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil), Bulandshahr was received on 14.1.1999.
3. Thereafter a letter dated 20.1.1999 was written by the S.L.A.O., Bulandshahr to the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body for his consent to file an appeal and the consent was received on 2.2.1999. Thereafter, for seeking permission to file an appeal in the High Court a letter dated 10.2.1999 was written to the Secretary, Revenue Department, U. P.
4. In para 5 of the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application it is stated that reminder was also sent, but the date of sending the reminder has been left blank in the affidavit.
5. In para 6 of the affidavit it is alleged that the permission from the State Government to file an appeal was received on 24.8.1999. Thereafter the amount of Court fees was received from the acquiring body on 29.4.2000 and the account clerk was asked to prepare the Bank Draft. It is alleged that the Bank Draft was prepared only in June, 2000, and thereafter the official came to the office of the Chief standing counsel on 5.9.2000 for filing the appeal.
6. These facts reveal the casual, irresponsible and shoddy manner in which such appeals are being treated by the State Government. There is inexplicable delay between 10.2.1999 when the S.L.A.O., wrote a letter to the Secretary, Revenue Department, U. P. for seeking permission to file an appeal, and the receipt of the permission on 24.8.1999. This delay of more than six months is totally unexplained. Thereafter also there is no proper explanation between 24.8.1999 when permission for filing of the appeal is said to have been received from the State Government and September, 2000 when the appeal was actually filed, i.e., unexplained delay of more than one year.
7. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In similar circumstances we rejected the Section 5 application in First Appeal No. 162 of 1997, State of V. P. v. Kamal Mustafa Khan, decided on 9.2.2004. We referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 (vide para 27) and C.W.T. v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 (Suppl) 2 SCC 603. Following these decisions we reject the application under Section 5, Limitation Act. Consequently this appeal also stands dismissed.