IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2341 OF 2014 (L-K) BETWEEN:
V Raveendra Aged about 50 years, S/o Venkatarayappa, R/at Seethampura, Eragampura Post, Chintamani Taluk-577301, Chikkaballapura District.
(By Sri. L. Shekar, Advocate) AND:
The Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C, Kolar Division, Kolar 577201.
... Appellant … Respondent (By Smt H. R. Renuka, Advocate for Respondent) This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 4664 of 2008 dated 3.3.2009.
This Writ Appeal, coming on for admission, this day, RAVI MALIMATH., J, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 1985 days in filing the appeal. An application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein the prayer made therein is to condone the delay of 1985 days. The reason stated therein is that the appellant was residing in a remote village, his financial condition was bad and the father of the appellant was ill. Therefore, he could not approach the court in time. He has stated that in addition, the respondent – Management voluntarily reinstated other employees and therefore, he was also under the hope of being reinstated. In the course of narrating the facts in paragraph 3, even the number of days delay is kept blank.
2. We do not think it appropriate to accept the applications filed in such a manner. There is no reason assigned as to what happened to his father or as to how the financial condition of the appellant improved to enable him to file the appeal. The manner in which the application has been filed which contains blanks, would clearly indicate that this is not a bona fide application. It is intended only to cover up the laxity in filing the appeal after a huge delay. We are aware of the fact that delay should always be construed in a liberal manner and technicalities cannot come in the way of doing substantial justice to a litigant.
3. However, here is a case where the appeal has been filed after a huge delay, where the reasons assigned do not repose any confidence in the court. Even though the delay is to be construed liberally, it cannot extend to considering such kind of applications being filed. In the absence of any seriousness and bona fides, we do not think that the reasons assigned for the huge delay of 1985 days constitutes sufficient cause. Hence, the application I.A.No.2 of 2014 for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
I.A.3 of 2014 is dismissed as a consequence.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE KS