- (1.) M. Katju, J. This first appeal has been filed after delay of one year and 41 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application it is mentioned that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad was passed on 12-9- 2002. Application for certified copy was made on 18-9-2002 and the copy made available in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad on 12-11-2002. Thereafter the letter dated 13- 11-02 was sent to the D. G. C. (Civil) for his opinion and this letter was received in the office of D. G. C. on 23-12-02. The acquiring body was also informed through letter dated 14-11-02 whether an appeal should be filed and the acquiring body informed on 26. 11. 02 that they do not need the land in question vide Annexure 1. In para 8 of the affidavit it is stated that the acquiring body gave its opinion on 1-7-03 for filing an appeal. For this purpose letter dated 7-7-03 was written to the Government and permission was granted on 30-7-03. After grant of permission from the Government several letters were written to the acquiring body for providing Court fee and misc. expenses for filing the appeal. The acquiring body gave a draft in the name of Chief Standing Counsel on 18-9-2003. The file was allotted to the Standing Counsel on 23-9- 2003. However, it is stated that the affidavit had to be sworn by Virendra Kumar Manager (Marketing) District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad who was transferred and in his place Praveen Kumar Gupta was posted as Project Manager, District Industries Centre, Ghaziabad who contacted the Chief Standing Counsel on 20-2-04. Ultimately the appeal was filed on 10-3-2004.
(3.) THE above facts disclose the callous and irresponsible manner in which this appeal has been treated. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. THEre are several periods of unexplained delay e. g. between 12-9- 02 and 12-11-02 (vide para 4 of the affidavit) between 14-11-02 and 1-7-03 (vide paras 6 and 8 of the affidavit) and then delay between 18-9-03 when the officer contacted the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad and 10-3-04 when the appeal was filed. We are not satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. For the reasons given in First Appeal No. 162 of 1997, State of U. P. and another v. Kamal Mustafa Khan and others, decided on 9-2-2004 and in First Appeal No 160 of 1997, State of U. P. and others v. Kamal Mustafa Khan, decided on 3-3-2004 [since reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 104 (All) by this Court relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749 (para 27) and C. W. T. v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 603, this application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;