STATE OF U.P. Vs. AMAR NATH
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 10,2014
STATE OF U.P.
Appellant
VERSUS
AMAR NATH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
CHAIRMAN M.S. BANGA HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED BEKWAY, RECLAMATION, BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. M/S. HEERA AGENCIES AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-302] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. JITENDRA SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MP VS. SWASTIK FERTILIZER AND CHEMI PVT LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2014-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. BAHABITI MARANDI [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARDIK RAJESHKUMAR SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-1099] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SANJAY & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW VS. M R SOAP PVT LTD, GHAZIABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-133] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. SANJIB HALDER [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KALYAN GANGULY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR KHAN VS. JAMILA BI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-6-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. ABDUL GANI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MUKESH DHAKAD [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MADANSINH RAMSING RAJPUT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VEDVRAT SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2023-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. MASTER COLD STORAGE & ICE FACTORY VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. [LAWS(NCD)-2016-2-106] [REFERRED]
BARELAL VS. NARVADI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-167] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. VS. BANSILAL [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-197] [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-417] [REFERRED TO]
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09, NEW DELHI VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. LILY ONGMU LEPCHA [LAWS(SIK)-2017-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. GEETABEN J DESAI [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-289] [REFERRED TO]
CIT VS. ARVINDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR VS. PROGRESSIVE INDUSTRIES [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-1825] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN FRONT RAILWAY VS. LALMALSAWMI [LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-165] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-433] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. TRILOKI PANDEY [LAWS(PAT)-2024-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SP, CBI VS. LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
BIKASH CHANDRA PRADHANI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPTT. & ORS. VS. SMT. SUNAYNA SHARMA (SOHANI) R.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-450] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPALSATYAPAL LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) VS. BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION &ORS VS. CHARU CHANDRA KARMAKAR&ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. SK. JOYNAL ABEDIN [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-204] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. SAMPATA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-95] [REFERRED TO]
DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER(DEESA AIR FIELD) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. PRAGATI BHANDARE [LAWS(MPH)-2014-5-144] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RANJANA YOGI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. AMRITLAL KADAM [LAWS(MPH)-2014-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I VS. HINDUSTAN MACHINES [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-287] [REFERRED TO]
P. RAMULU VS. M. MADHAVA REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. SUSANTA KUMAR KARAN [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-200] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOLS, & 1 VS. JAYPRAKASH RAMESHCHANDRA THAKER & 3 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-426] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY VS. GUJARAT BOROSIL LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-75] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KAILASHCHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. VS. BANESINGH GURJAR [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-209] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. DAULATRAM BAROD [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA VS. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2020-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
K. SWAMIDHAS VS. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS PROJECT OFFICER BINESH SHARMA SON OF LALDEO SHARMA RESIDENT OF KUJU COLLIERY, P.O. VS. SARLU MAHATO SON OF LATU MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DULMI, P.O. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)There is a delay of 481 days in filing this Special Leave Petition and by means of present application petitioner seeks condonation thereof.
(2.)In the application the petitioner has attributed the delay to the moving of file from one Department/ Officer to the other. We hardly find this to be a sufficient explanation for condoning such an abnormal delay. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 3 SCC 563has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government Authorities/ Departments in the following words:-
"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 bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, 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.
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 bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for 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 the 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.
(3.)We further find that in identical circumstances in similar type of case which also arose against the award of the Labour Court, upheld by the High Court this court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition on that ground. That was CC No. 5368/2013 titled State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Hanuman which was dismissed on 11.3.2013. We had summoned the file of that case and find both the cases are almost similar. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view. We thus, dismiss this SLP on the ground of delay.
(2.)In the application the petitioner has attributed the delay to the moving of file from one Department/ Officer to the other. We hardly find this to be a sufficient explanation for condoning such an abnormal delay. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 3 SCC 563has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government Authorities/ Departments in the following words:-
"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 bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, 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.
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 bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for 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 the 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.
(3.)We further find that in identical circumstances in similar type of case which also arose against the award of the Labour Court, upheld by the High Court this court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition on that ground. That was CC No. 5368/2013 titled State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Hanuman which was dismissed on 11.3.2013. We had summoned the file of that case and find both the cases are almost similar. Therefore, there is no reason to take a different view. We thus, dismiss this SLP on the ground of delay.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.