G. M. LODHA. J. - (1.) THIS is a hopelessly time barred restoration application under Article 226 read with Section 151 C. P. C. and a classical case of inordinate delay latches lethargy, indifference and gross negligence of corporation run, by public funds.
(2.) RAJASTHAN state Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur has filed this restoration application on 7-9-79 for setting aside the order dismissing the writ application No. 106/1973 in default on 8-8-78. Since the application is obviously time barred, an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed. I have considered the application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 395 days. The writ application was dismissed in default on 8-8-78 and the corporation allegedly came to know of it only later on when one I. N. Sharma was informed by Abdul Gafoor respondent No. 2 who had moved an application to the effect that the case of the corporation has been dismissed. It has been alleged that Mr. Munshi was not at Jaipur on the day, the writ application was dismissed in default. I have carefully considered the submission of Mr. Munshi who has in the last submitted that the restoration may be ordered because the grounds of default are personal relating to the counsel. The basic fact remains that after the case was dismissed in default on 8. 8. 78, it was the duty of the learned counsel for the petitioner to immediately find out what has happened to the case and apply for the restoration. Once the case is in the Daily Cause list and thereafter when it disappeared, the party and the counsel both should become apprehensive and find out the reasons The story put up by the Corporation that they came to know of it on application of respondent No. 2 and thereafter continued to make inquiries, cannot be taken as genuine for explaining the delay. It is to be noted that the delay is not of a few days but of 395 days i. e. more than a year. If the corporation and his counsel fails to care for a writ application for more than a year, after it was dismissed and therefore not shown in the Daily Cause list, all that can be said is that it is a case of gross negligence, indifference and lethargy of the corporation. Under Section 5 Limitation Act each days delay is required* to be explained satisfactorily. The corporation has got several employees and legal branch should have also looked after it. / It is not good reason to say that as the counsel was busy at Jodhpur in the corporation cases, nobody was available to look after the corporation's cases at Jaipur and even when the case disappeared from the Daily Cause List having been dismissed in default, none thought of finding the reasons till the respondent No. 2 moved an application. Such sort of indifference of the corporation calls for serious consideration, as a corporation is run by public funds. In view of this, the Court cannot accept wholly unsatisfactory explanation for condoning the delay of more than a year, nor it can fail to decide the, case objectively and on impersonal consideration, on the ground that the learned counsel has submitted that the grounds for delay and default are personal. The High Court to say the least, should consider the case impersonally, objectively and in a detached manner; without permitting personal consideration of the parties or the counsel; to influence its decision. That way alone the scales of justice can be kept in tact and balanced without permitting them to tilt. With the above observations, both application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being without any bonafide or sufficient case and the application for restoration being hopelessly time barred are hereby dismissed.
(3.) COPY of the judgment be sent to the Chairman of the Corporation concerned. .;