Subhash Chand v. Dev Dutt & ORS
!
"#$
%&' () '*"+"(# , , -./0%+0 0%#1 ,,,'&"&"(#'2 3'2+.+
'4 .&& %#1 %#(&0'2 ,,,'+5(#1'#&+
6 7 , - - - -
!
"#
$ %
%
&
"#
$ %
%% "' () *("+
,
%
.
-
$
%
%
*# + "//"
0
1
!
% %%
0
%
%
% !
!
%
%
$
"( () *("(
"3 "* *((/
%
$
%%
"3 "* *((/
%
%
"3 "* *((/
%
%
*("*
2 .
%
,
% %
% "' () *("+
.
5 "' "* *("+
%
%
% ,
%
%
% !
2 "3 "* *((/
%
!
%
% %
%
1
$
1
%
$
*((/ 5
%
% %
!
% 2 2$
*("* . 1
$
"3 "* *((/
%
%
! $
%
5
%
!
,
! !%
.
67!
8 1
!
""# "
"$ %
& '
( % ')'(
''
*) (* *("*
7
!
9 67!
8 1
%
:
: % 4
%
$ In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentality that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 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.
14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs."
1 % $
4 !
"3 "* *((/
: ; % 4
%
!
. *("*
!
%
"3 "* *((/
!%
.
%
4%
!
2 ,
67!
8
* !++,
-. %/ 0
1 (+ (/ "//3
% 4
%
!%
$"+
<"+ It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." =
! %
%
%
% % %
% 1 $
!% $
%
% 0 %
(+
%
%
!
.
%
: 6 %
%
52"8 9
- - -