Heard Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant on delay condonation application.
This appeal is directed against award dated 18.11.2003 given by Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Varanasi on 18.11.2003 in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.253 of 1992 enhancing the compensation of the acquired land. Appeal has been filed on 30.03.2006 with delay of 2 year 29 days. The ground of delay taken in the accompanying affidavit of District Engineer In-charge Eastern Central Railway Dehrionsone is as follows:-
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) East Central Railway Dehrionsone sent the certified copy of the impugned award along with legal opinion to Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) East Central Railway, Patna on 01.01.2004. Thereafter Deputy Chief Engineer sent reminder to Chief Administrative Officer for taking decision on 08.01.2004 and 06.02.2004. Thereafter, Chief Engineer wrote letter on 25.02.2004 to Deputy General Manager (Law), Patna. Thereafter, Assistant Law Officer wrote letter to Chief Engineer on 10.03.2004. Deputy Chief Engineer wrote letter on 08.04.2004 to Chief Administrative Officer. Assistant Law Officer also sent letter on 07.05.2004 to Chief Administrative Officer. Thereafter some more internal communications between different officers ensued on the following dates; 29.06.2006 (para 12), 24.09.2004 (para 13), 06.10.2004 (para 14), 21.12.2004 (para 15). In this letter dated 21.12.2004, the name of the Advocate who would file the appeal was enquired. Assistant Law Officer nominated Sri Govind Saran, learned Standing Counsel - Railway at the High Court for filing the case by order dated 28.12.2004 (para 16). Thereafter, Deputy Chief Engineer wrote letter on 16.02.2005 to Sri Govind Saran regarding filing of the case (para 17). In para 18 it is mentioned that Sri Govind Saran, learned Standing Counsel requested the Deputy Chief Engineer to send the Vakalatnama. It is wonderful that on 16.02.2005 Deputy Chief Engineer had written letter to Sri Govind Saran for filing appeal but he forget to send the Vakalatnama. Thereafter, it is mentioned that further inter departmental communications for completing the formalities took place on 15.04.2005 (para 19) 10.05.2005 (para 20), 27.10.2005 and 09.12.2005 (para 21 ) Rs. 1,000/- as expenses were sanctioned on 13.12.2005.
The above facts disclose horrible state of affairs and utter negligence of different officers. If this is their style of working then they do not deserve to remain on the post. Chances of these officers being in collusion with land owners cannot be ruled out. It is fit case where Eastern Railway must take disciplinary proceeding against erring officers.
In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) S.C.483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay (of 427 days) in filing S.L.P. paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:-
12) 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. 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 6 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.
13) 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 redtape 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. 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."
Delay condonation application is, therefore, rejected.
Order Date :- 1.5.2012 vks Court No. - 59 Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.798664 of 2006 IN Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 92 of 2006 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru' G.M. & Another Respondent :- Ram Rekha & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Govind Saran Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Rejected.
For order see order of date passed on the separate sheets.
Order Date :- 1.5.2012 vks Court No. - 59 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 92 of 2006 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru' G.M. & Another Respondent :- Ram Rekha & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Govind Saran Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
As delay condonation application has been rejected by order of date passed hence First Appeal is dismissed as barred by time.
Order Date :- 1.5.2012 vks