Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the sole respondent.
The special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.3488 (SS) of 2014; (Krishna Murari Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others).
The application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No.4743 of 2021) has been filed in terms of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules in view of the fact that there is considerable delay of 517 days as indicated by the Registry in filing the said appeal.
As per the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, the applicant itself has stated that knowledge with regard to the passing of impugned judgment was available with the respondents on 27.08.2019 itself. Subsequently letters were exchanged between the authorities. With regard to the compliance of judgment impugned the Director, Pension Directorate, U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 17.12.2019 has directed the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur to comply the court's order.
Subsequently the matter was referred to the State Government also, which vide letter dated 4.3.2020 granted permission for filing the review application.
Despite the aforesaid factors, the special appeal has been filed on 11.1.2021.
From the perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that notice with regard to the impugned judgment and order was available with the appellants as far back as September, 2019 and permission for filing review has also been granted by the State Government in April 2020, as such, there is no reasonable explanation for considerable delay in filing the special appeal.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bherulal; (2020) 10 SCC 654 has specifically held that reasonable explanation for delay has to be furnished by the appellants even if it is a state entity. It has been further held that mere inter-departmental communication between the authorities is not enough to condone the delay of such nature. In the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another (supra) in paras 27, 28 and 29 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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 period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bherulal (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 5, 6 and 7 has held as under:
"5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible."
In view of aforesaid, the special appeal having been filed with considerable delay and without any plausible or reasonable explanation for such delay, is not maintainable.
Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently the special appeal itself is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 Ram.