State Of Haryana And Others v. Dewan Chand And Others
#)*+$*, - !./
.
0 1
0 1
!
"# 1 2& #3( # $ %!
&'(
! $
)
+ , + -.(--(#/
*
+ , + #&#--(#.
!+ *
!
-.(#-(#/ ! , +
#&#--(#. !
! ! !
!
1 (2(--(#/ + !
!
0 !
3
! + 1
-'(--(#/ 3
! +
+ 4 ++* !
!
5 647 ! 5 6 7
! *
, + 1 * !
! -((--(#/
!
1
!
-'(--(#/ 4
! * !
*
4
++ , + ! * 0 !
+ 3
! + 1 #-(/-(#/ 3
! + + !++
!
, + 1 +
! * 4
(8#--(#/
1 + !
('(--(-( 4
!
!
('(.-(-( - 4 ! *+ !
*!
, + + 9 &( )#)*+#4#3#!$5- 67 #!$)8*-2& (/
&( 8* #9 !48&*,*#-*$()8:48 -#!$)8*- 5- ! !+!$ ##!$)8*-2& /( / & !
"#*+ : 1
+!
! !+ !
+ : *
1
%
!
!
! !
/
+
)
1
! ! ! 4
1
*!
4
*
!
2
! !
, + + 9 &( ++ ,*+)8*8 *+ -)#-)**!*#3#!$)8*-5-
5 !4*$ #!$ # )$#!$#!)8*2& (/
;/ &( 8* )#)* + #$8<# #$*-8 #!$ )8*- 5- 8*:3#32& ( ;
&/(
! 5*- )<+*38 5- ! !+!$ ##!$)8*-2 & (/ &( 8* )#)* + $8 -8# #!$ )8*- 5- :!#!$# #8#7:$#2& ( ; & (
! ! + !$ # 5- *!)#3 =*)#! ,83- $> ! -)#) !#!$)8*-2& (
8 4 ! *
* ! ! ! * '
!"# * + !
!
! !
2-;
!
4 $ + * !
+ !
*
! < <$
!
!+
+ ! !
=
! )
+! * !
*!!
!
!
!
* , ! !!
+
! + ! *!!
!+
!
$ * * +
9 It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
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 bonafide, 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.
being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.!
; $" %%
!"# +
+
!
%
!
''&
!
4 $ + * ! ! ! )!* ! *%
!
+
! * ! !+
*!
!!
!$ + * 9 >
" # $ ## % "% &
' ( & ( %
)
%# (
%
* "
#"
' ( $, $
"
&&
#
( # "+
%
& ( ("
" "#+
& ## -# ( )
% (
.% &
&%
/#
(
#
& (
& ( % "%
& "(# "
0 0
%
%+)
## -#
#
% # "+
1 %+) (
$ &
' (
" " +%
#
% ,
# & 2%"
;
#%"
(
#
(
$ "& "
&
$ $ &
' ( 0 # (
%"
2%&(
% ( '
3& 5*6 3 $
% + % 7 8 * #%
# 56 ""
$
$ $
" $
% "%&
# "+ #
(
,& %#
( $
& # "
# % 0
" "(
#
#
( $
#( $ # $ "(# #
( $ "% #"
& *
+ "
#%+
""
#+
/#) $
#& .% $
" ( "" ( "%
' ( $&
' ( #
%
0%& $
""%
" (
"
$
$ & && "
+
" ",
+
) + ""
# "
%+ 2%"
) $
$
" ""%("
)
#( " ,
&
%
" 0
"( ""%
(# (" +% %""
( &
(,& "
""
#
$
( "& & % + 0
$
( %%+ +
+ "%&
' (
: * % $)
& (
(
& ( + ) & " %( %
+
""
#+
/#
$ +
)
""
#
%%
/#
$ , # # &
(- %
" +
&
#"
% #
#"
0
& ( #(
% # " +&
%
# ( % $ & "
"(((
/"
# %
% "#
& ( #( 0
$
%
(
& %
$
$ &
"
$ ##
/#
#(
/"
# ( &
% ) ""& %)
#( ( +
&
""
#+
"& %
" "
%" %&
!
;
&
##" $
%"
%
%+
"%(
#"
&&
"%( ! * #&# )
%
"
(
+% %""
#"
$,) ""%!
< ;
# # % ## %&
##%
(
(
" )
#
& &+ *
"
& ( ) $ %""
" * +
( $" "
% % & " 0 )
"% ) ,
$
2%"
% ###
"
"
!
. &"
'() %$
!"#
!
!
, +
? !
!
!
!
/#'
! +
!
!
* !
+!
!
* ++ )+
!
!
!+ ! ! +
!
! * %
!
!
! *%
)
!
*
!!
=
* * + +
* 9 23.From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party, namely, the Government or the public
?
bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even-handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient cause" to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the courts based on the fact situation. In Katiji the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight of is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 %.
24.
As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. In addition in the instant facts not only the delay and laches
in filing the appeal is contended on behalf of the respondents seeking dismissal of the instant appeal but it is also contended that there was delay and laches in filing the writ petition itself at the first instance from which the present appeal had arisen. In that view, it would be necessary for us to advert to those aspects of the matter and notice the nature of consideration made in the writ petition as well as the LPA to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the High Court was justified. 31.
In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well-accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with. In that regard, rather than taking note of the hardship that would be caused to the respondent No.13 as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, what is necessary to be taken note is the manner in which the Respondent No.11, DMRC has proceeded in the matter. The Respondent No.11, DMRC is engaged in providing the public transport and for the said purpose the Government through policy decision has granted approval to generate resources through property development and in that regard the development as earlier indicated, is taken up. Pursuant thereto the Respondent No.11 has received a sum of Rs.218.20 crores from Respondent No.13 as far back as in the year 2008.
The said amount as indicated is used for its projects providing metro rail service to the commuting public. In such circumstance, if at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.!
/ % +
* $+
!"#
"%,-* $((% . "(
!"# #( *$(/0*$
!"# +
!
@
!
2;/
!
!!
! #. 4
!: ! #./2 $ +
!
!
* !
*) !
)+
)
+) !
!
!
* , ! !
! !
A
!
+
! *) !
* +!
*, !
+ ! ##
, + + ! *!
!
! !
< ! < * !
+
! *) !
*, !
!
* , !
< * !
!
!
*%
)
!
*
!!
$ ! ++ *
! +!
+ + + *
+ !+
!
!
* +
!
+
!+ ! #- = ! &'(
$ % )
* +
> ! B! !
)
!!
! *
!
+ $ ! 4
!
!
+ * 3
! +
4" *
!
4 !
!!
!
!
#&
) !
&'( + +
+
+ %=
3*
-(#/ 4
! * (; +
#-(/-(#/ 3
! + *!% ! "
) !+
*(;+
= +
/
!
!*
4
!
+ -&#(-(#/
(8#--(#/ !
*
, + + *
? !
#2 =
!
!
) !
! !
&'(
) * !
)
*!
) !
4 !
* !
!* , ! !
)
! 4
!
!
%
!
+
! :
!!+
+ + ! #8
+ ! ! 57
& 1 ( & 1( #!:#</ 2 = %
<
C<" * C<"