1. The applicants are State Government authorities. Present application has been taken out seeking below mentioned relief:
"8(b).
Your Lordships be pleased to extend the time by 3 months granted by this Hon'ble Court by order Dated 15-7-2011 to decide the representation of the opponents herein Dt.10-03-2011."
2. Learned AGP Mr. Raval submitted that procedure of moving file from one department to another department consumed time and therefore final order as per direction by the Court in order dated 15/07/2011 could not be passed. Therefore applicant requests for three months extension of time.
3. Some time back, similar application i.e. Misc. Civil Application No.1133 of 2012 was preferred by the State seeking similar relief. In the said case also, any action to comply the directions of the Court were not taken and before expiry of time or immediately after expiry of time any application seeking extension of time was not filed. Therefore, considering the conduct of the applicants, the Court was constrained to pass order dated 02/05/2012 in Misc. Civil Application No.1133 of 2012.
4. Now, present application has been moved wherein also the same attitude and conduct of the applicants State authorities is reflected.
5. In present case, this Court had passed order dated 15/07/2011 directing present applicants to take appropriate decision within three months. Almost ten months have passed since the said order, however, during the entire period the applicants have not passed any order. Any application seeking extension of time has not been preferred by the applicants before expiry of time. Even immediately upon expiry of prescribed time limit and immediately thereafter also, the applicants did not care to take out application seeking extension of time. Another six months passed since the expiry of time limit and yet the applicants did not care to take any steps to seek extension or to pass order.
6. Until today even, any order is not passed. This Court could have appreciated the request if the application had been preferred along with the order and with the submission that now the order is passed but delay has been caused in passing the order and therefore, delay may be condoned. Instead even after expiry of ten months, the order has not been passed and the direction by the Court are flouted with immunity and the applicants seek further extension of time for another three months. This conduct of the applicant State is noticed in several cases which reflects the conduct of the applicants State and also the casual attitude with which the order passed by the Court are being considered.
7. Any reason or justification is not made out by the applicants State explaining the conduct of not preferring the application seeking extension of time at appropriate time. Therefore, present application is rejected.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top