- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 16-3-2004 passed by the District Judge, Kushi Nagar. THEre is a delay of two years and 124 days in approaching the writ Court. THE explanation for condoning the delay has been averred in paragraph-18 of the writ petition which stated that the department sought permission for filing the writ petition and, in that regard, the file had to pass from one table to another table and, therefore, that it took some time in granting the permission. THE said paragraph further stated that the Court should take a lenient view, while condoning the delay, in the cases filed on behalf of the State Government. The State Government is not above the law and that it cannot be treated differently from that of a common litigant. The law applies equally to all, including the State Government. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State, as a litigant, should be equally treated and that the law should be administered in an even handed manner. The law of limitation is the same for a common litigant as well as for the State Government. A common litigant has to arrange for the requisite expenses and make arrangement for his boarding and lodging. He also has to choose an advocate of his choice. These are time consuming process, but the same has to be done within a stipulated period. On the other hand, the State Government has all the requisite infrastructure to file a writ petition as early as possible. Merely, because the State Government is an impersonal machinery does not mean that the Government can work at its own pace and leisure. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, extends the period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal and gives a power to the Court to admit the appeal or an application after the prescribed period. The only condition is, that the applicant or the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated period. Though, the Limitation Act is not applicable in a writ jurisdiction, nonetheless, the principles can be applied and the Court can decline to entertain a writ petition, on the ground of laches, if sufficient cause is not shown.
(3.) WHAT constitutes "sufficient cause" cannot be laid down by any hard and fast principle. The discretion given to the Court cannot be defined or crystallised in a rigid rule of law. The Supreme Court in a number of cases has observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally if it finds that the litigant had acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the matter. If the Court finds that there was lack of bona fide or negligence on the part of the party the application was liable to be refused. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. , 1996 (2) JCLR 235 (SC) : (1996)3 SCC 132, the Supreme Court held that even though the Court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay, the law of limitation was required to be administered in an even handed manner and that a litigant, including the State, should be accorded the same treatment, though certain amount of latitude was permissible to be given to the State Government on account of its impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology. Similar view was held by the Supreme Court in the case of The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K. V. Ayisumma, 1997 (1) JCLR 63 (SC) : JT 1996 (7) SC 204, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "it is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. It would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pedantic. ";