The State Of Maharashtra v. Shri Sadashiv Rama Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1499 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 41612 OF 1999 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1500 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 41612 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ..

Appellant vs.

Shri Sadashiv Rama Patil ..

Respondent Mr. A. A. Palkar - AGP for Applicant / Appellant. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE: 10 JANUARY 2017 P.C :

1] Civil application no. 1499 of 2002 seeks condonation of delay of 726 days in instituting the appeal.

2] The impugned award was made on 12 October 1995 and quite curiously, the certified copy thereof was delivered to the appellant only on 16 October 1997. If the award was made on 20 October 1995, then the certified copy has to be issued within reasonable time. Delay of almost two years in issuance of the certified copy can hardly be regarded as any reasonable period. However, this is not a factor which can be held against the appellant.

1/8

3] The certified copy, as noted earlier, was received on 16 October 1997. However, till 12 October 1999 i.e. for a period of almost two years such certified copy along with the opinion of the District Government Pleader was not even forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya. There is virtually no explanation for this delay of about two years. Accordingly, the additional affidavit has been filed on 3 May 2002 in order to explain such delay. The affidavit purports to lay the blame upon the concerned District Government Pleader. The District Government Pleader has merely stated that on account of heavy workload, it was not possible for him to forward the certified copy along with his opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department. This is again, not at all a satisfactory explanation.

4] Mr. Palkar, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Ramegowda Major & Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore1, to submit that the delay takes due to fraud and unusual conduct of the Government Pleaders, the Courts may condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

(1988) 2 SCC 142 2/8

5] In this case, there is no fraud alleged against the Government Pleader. In this case, there is virtually no explanation as to why there was such inordinate delay in institution of the appeal. Merely to say that there was a heavy workload is no explanation for a delay of this nature. Ultimately, it should be noted that this is an appeal of the year 1999. The award in this case was made in the year 1995. On account of pendency of this matter, in all probabilities, the persons whose lands were acquired have been deprived of compensation.

6] In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon, Medium Project and anr.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pursing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by (2008) 17 SCC 448 3/8

condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. This serves no public interest. Though, the State on its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for governmental authorities. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case, if any, such facts are pleaded and proved they cannot be excluded from consideration. In a case with which we are concerned, no such facts have been either pleaded or proved.

7] In Union of India and ors. vs. Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd.3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the special leave petition filed almost one year after the receipt of copy of the judgment. The explanation that delay was on account of the file having moved through various departments was not accepted. 8] In Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) and anr. Vs. Jose Prazeres DE Piedade Pinto r/o. Old Market and ors.4, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that delay cannot be condoned 1987 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 192 2006(4) Mh.L.J.

in a matter relating to land acquisition case, merely on the ground that the matter involved public monies. On such basis, the Government cannot seek condonation of delay as a matter of right. It is necessary for the Government to furnish necessary and satisfactory explanation for such delay. In case the delay has occurred on account of either willful acts on the part of the concerned officer/s or for any other reason, the same has to be stated and some material produced on record in support thereof. Mere statements regarding the movement of the file from one office to the other office, from one table to the other table cannot be construed as satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.

9] In Registrar of Companies Vs. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. and ors.5 , the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that though some latitude has to be shown to the Government in deciding the question of delay, that does not give a licence to the officers of the Government to shirk their responsibility to act with reasonable expedition.

10] In Basawaraj and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 9 and 15 has (2000) 6 SCC 133 (2013) 14 SCC 81 5/8

observed thus:

"9.

Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".

However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, Parimal v. Veena and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai.)

.........

15.

The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to 6/8

passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature". 11] In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and ors.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia laid down the following guidelines for considering an application for condonation of delay: "(i) ...

...

...

...

...

...

(xiv) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. (xv) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

(xvi) ............

(xvii) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

12] In Postmaster General and ors vs. Living Media India Limited and anr.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 427 days in filing special leave petition by observing thus:

"28. 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, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim (2013) 12 SCC 649 (2012) 3 SCC 563 7/8

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.

29.

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 several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the 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.

30.

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."

13] Considering the facts in the present case, inordinate and unexplained delay as well as the legal position, there is no case made out to condone delay. Accordingly, civil application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal along with civil application therein are also dismissed. (M. S. SONAK, J.) Chandka 8/8