STATE OF J&K Vs. BASHIR AHMED BHAT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Bashir Ahmed Bhat
Click here to view full judgement.
QAWOOSA, J. -
(1.) THIS order will dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment
dated 10.9.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 570/86
titled Bashir Ahmad Bhat versus State of J&K others. Forty -seven days
delay in total has been caused in filing the appeal. The justification
given by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay is
that the Department came to know about this judgment on 12.11.1998 when
notice bearing No.l/BA/95 dated 12.11.1998 was sent by Mr. M.A. Qayoom,
Advocate, accompanied by a copy of the judgment, for implementation
thereof. On receipt of this notice, the Deputy Director marked it as
immediate and a report was sought. It took some time in tracing the
record in the Direction Office. The file was put up before the Deputy
Director on 24.11.1998 who marked it to the legal cell for its
examination on 25.11.1998. At official level, a detailed report was
prepared on 30.11.1998. The matter was considered on 2nd and 3rd December
1998. The decision to file the appeal was taken on 7.12.1998. However, thereafter, it took some more time for obtaining a report from the field
staff and the concerned Block Development Officer. Ultimately, the appeal
was prepared on 24.12.1998. It is further stated that the date of
judgment mentioned in the photo copy of the judgment received from the
counsel of the writ petitioner alongwith the notice was not legible. It
was bona -fide believed that the judgment was announced on 9th October,
1998. However, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment from the Registry of this court, it was found that the judgment had actually
been delivered on 10th September, 1998. On account of this confusion
about the date of judgment, and official wrangling, the delay in filing
the Letters Patent Appeal was caused.
(2.) OBJECTIONS have been filed by the othersise in which the respondent has controverted the pleas taken by the petitioners both on
facts and on law.
(3.) HEAD learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Qayoom, has vehemently argued that the explanation tendered by the petitioners on facts is
totally bereft of ground realities. According to him, the judgment was
delivered in the presence of the counsel for respondents in the writ
petition. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of petitioners that they
were not aware of the judgment delivered on 10th September, 1998.
According to him, the delay has been caused deliberately and the law does
not permit to condone the delay on flimsy grounds which will otherwise
effect the right occurring to the respondent (writ -petitioner). He has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case P.K.
Ramachandran Vs. State of Karala (AIR 1998 SC 2276) in which it has
been held: -
5. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court (Sic) thus, a (Sic) proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. It needs a mention here that in the above said case, the Apex Court found that the High Court had not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory which was essential pre -requisites to condonation of delay .
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.