Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred with a delay of 1 year and 128 days, therefore, is barred by time. In a very casual fashion, delay has sought to be explained, inasmuch as, it is admitted that order passed by Tribunal dated 26.05.2012 was received by Department on 29.05.2012. First step was taken on the very same day i.e. vide letter dated 29.5.2012 followed by reminder letters dated 14.6.2012 and 1.8.2012 by Deputy Commissioner -State Representative, Commercial Tax, Varanasi, who requested Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector -9, Noida to send typed copy of assessment order, first appellate order and order of Tribunal. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 11, Ghaziabad sent typed copy along with letter dated 7.9.2012. The Deputy Commissioner, State Representative, Commercial Tax, Varanasi sent proposal to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 11, Ghaziabad to contact Chief Standing Counsel to file revision, who vide letter dated 31.10.2012 returned the file to Deputy Commissioner -State Representative, Commercial Tax, Varanasi and thereafter sent the matter to the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Range B, Varanasi vide letter dated 4.12.2012 for approval to file revision, who granted approval vide order dated 12.12.2012. Thereafter State Representative, Varanasi, vide letter dated 12.3.2013 requested to Joint Commissioner (Executive) Range B, Ghaziabad, to direct Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 11, Ghaziabad to file revision who returned the file vide letter dated 29.4.2013 in original to State Representative, Varanasi. State Representative, Varanasi vide letter dated 27.5.2013 thereafter requested Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 7, Varanasi to file revision, who vide letter dated 26.6.2013 returned the file to State Representative, Varanasi that the file is not under the jurisdiction of the Sector. Thereafter, Joint Commissioner (Executive), Range B, Varanasi vide letter dated 24.7.2013 directed the deponent of affidavit and vide letter dated 19.9.2013, handed over all the documents to the deponent to file revision and then this revision has been filed after more than three months even thereafter. It is true that when State is a party, and file appeal/revision, as the case may be, with some delay, it may deserve some leverage for official hierarchical steps for permission etc. but a wholly unexplained, reckless and negligent approach of delay running in more than one year cannot be overlooked particularly when it is not the case of applicants that they have taken any action against erring individual.
(2.) THE expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji : (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non -deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In the matters where action is brought by Government, no person is individually affected and in ultimate analysis it is the public interest which suffers. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional and do not share the characteristic of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation though is equal and apply at par to both private individual and Government but where the Government makes out a case of sufferings to public interest owing to acts of fraud and bad faith on the part of its officials and agents, and also, the intention of Government not to allow such officers of doubtful integrity to go cost free, the Court should also come forward to do justice in the interest of public at large, but, a mere eye wash kind of explanation, without any honest intention of State authorities to proceed against tainted officers, or, those who have acted in a bad faith, or, those who have worked negligently, the explanation that delay must be condoned in public interest would be superficial and lacking bona fide, hence difficult to be accepted by Court.
(3.) IN G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer : AIR 1988 SC 897, in para. 8 of the judgment, the Court said: 8. .......Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of Section 5 it might, perhaps, be some what unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red -tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning of course, within a reasonable limits is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law -officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government.;