High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/1122/2018dismissed

State Of Haryana Through Addl Chief Secy To Govt Of Hry, Home Dept, Civil Sec, Chd And ORS v. Nanak Singh

2018-07-25Mr. Justice Krishna Murari,Mr. Justice Arun Palli13 pages

LPA11222018 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.07.2018 The State of Haryana and others ...Appellants

Versus

SI Nanak Singh

...Respondent

Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants.

* * * *

This intra court appeal filed by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2016 partly allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. Office has reported a delay of 400 days in filing and 72 days in refiling the appeal. 2.

The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit.

The reasons for delay as contained in Section 5 application are that:

After the impugned judgement dated 16.12.2016 was passed by the learned Single Judge, it was forwarded to learned Advocate General, Haryana seeking his opinion for filing Letters Patent Appeal. He gave an opinion dated 31.03.2017 that it was not a fit case for filing an appeal. The said opinion was forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Palwal which was received in his office on 10.04.2017. Simultaneously, copy of the opinion was also forwarded to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, who after examining the same, gave an opinion on 26.04.2017 differing with the opinion of the learned Advocate General which was forwarded to Director General of

Police, Haryana and Superintendent of Police, Palwal which was received in his office on 17.05.2017.

On 06.06.2017, Superintendent of Police, Palwal forwarded a proposal to Director General of Police, Haryana to file a Letters Patent Appeal. On 18.08.2017, Director General of Police, Haryana forwarded the proposal to Additional Chief Secretary, Haryana to issue necessary instructions to the Advocate General to file the Letters Patent Appeal. A sanction under clause 20.4 (c) of LR manual was accorded and was forwarded to Director General of Police, Haryana and Superintendent of Police, Palwal. A copy of the sanction was also forwarded to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana with a request to issue necessary instructions to the Advocate General for filing the LPA. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana is stated to have issued necessary instructions dated 12.01.2018 to the Advocate General to file the LPA and the same was forwarded to the office of Superintendent of Police, Palwal on 20.01.2018 and it is thereafter the present LPA was got prepared and is being filed. It is stated in the affidavit that delay in filing the appeal is due to administrative grounds and the same is not intentional.

A perusal of the facts, as reproduced hereinabove, goes to show that there has been a delay of almost two months at every stage during the movement of the file from one office to another for the purpose of opinion and sanction. There is no explanation for the said period.

It is no doubt correct that a litigant is not under an obligation to explain each and every day's delay in detail and the issue does not require a pedantic approach. What is required to be considered is that explanation submitted is bonafide and there exists sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that a liberal and justice orientated approach should be adopted particularly in matters involving the State and its instrumentalities, for the reason that delay is often caused on account of necessary and unavoidable formalities to be followed. It is also submitted that expression sufficient cause used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be given an interpretation which suits the ends of justice. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

1987(2) SCC 107.

It was next submitted that while considering issue of condoning the delay in a matter filed either by State or any of its instrumentality due regard be given to the fact that sufficient time is spent in the decision making process which is an institutional decision and, thus, Government ought not to be treated as any other private litigant. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this contention has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of

1996(3) SCC 132 and

1996(9) SCC 309.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above noted arguments and the facts of the case. 9.

It needs no emphasis that law of limitation is founded on public policy. The law of limitation has been enacted to ensure that the litigants approach the Court of law for seeking remedy without any unnecessary and unreasonable delay. At the same time, the Courts have been vested with the powers to condone the delay provided the litigant establishes

that he was precluded from availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation for a sufficient cause. 10.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

# # $

% JT 2012(4) SC 55 has observed that:

(# & )

* % +,-.

/ ##

" # %

) 11.

The issue being raised before us is no longer resintegra and stands settled by a catena of decisions. 12.

As long back as 1962, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2 %

2/ AIR 1962 SC 361 while interpreting the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act held as under: &3

* 4 % 5 "

/ %#

(# # % # % 6

## " " 1

/ # / / # % #

/ %

1 # %

(

% ## '

(

) 13.

However, there was a departure from the earlier judgements in the case of

(supra) wherein it was observed as under: &'

* % +,-.

# % 7%8 '

(# 7 8 %#

1## ( 3 %% /

## $ % ##

" #

# # :

;

4+5 <

## 4=5 2

% % / "

/ %

# 4.5 7>"

% (# %

## %

A '

% ##

%% # %

4B5 @

" #

" "

4*5 '

#%#

3 6 4-5 3 % #

#/ :

# %"

(# 6 1

## % ##" /

## '

/ 7 8 / / 6

# / "

/ %

#1%

% / 7 8

3 (# /

% ## 5

% / 1% 6 1 #

# 1 1 1 6

##" 3

" /

# " %% "

1 '

" % / #

# #

#" # (# 7 8 ##

## %

"/ "

% #

## /

%) 0 $ 6

CD' +,,E 4-5 =B= ; +,,E 4F5 +=.G / #

/ "

;

&3 (%

* %

(

% # (#

# (#

< # (#

#" (

% #

( / /

#" $

% /

3 # / /

# # % /

" %%

2 %

# '

# 6 %

#%# '

#" %

/ % (

'% #

% /

" " ! ( % / /

# # / # 6 %

## #

% (

/ %

# # 3

(% # # % 4 /

# 5 2 %

# '

6 %

#%# '

" %

% 6# "

" ( # % 3 % %%

% # #

% 3 (#

% 6 % #

% / % $ /

## #

3 % %

(# 3 /

%# ## # ) 14.

In the case of 0

#6 < 2005(3) SCC 752, after making reference to various precedents, the Apex Court proceeded to observe as under: &>(# /

## 5

% % /

1% 6 1# # 1 1 1 6

% ##" '

/ # " %% "

1 1 '

" % / #

# #

# (# #

% /

# ## ) 15.

The issue again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of < H I "

JT 2012(2) SC 483. After considering the various earlier decisions, it was observed as under: &+= 3

# 45 / / / "

/ ""

# # % 6 # %

# " #

" # #

% / !# % /

%# # % / # 3

# (#

/ #

% H" / H" # '

/ "/

!# %

% % 6 "

"/ %

/ %

H" ) 16.

It was further observed in paragraph 13 of the reports as under: &+. 3 "/ % % "

# (#

/ 6# #

" % J

# # # '

# %

%%%

# % '

/ "

/ /

/ ## (#

!# %

(# "

!# %

## %

) 17.

In the case of

(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: &+E @

# ( #/

* %

% "

% %

# % @

& ) / % ( " /

# ##

% (

J %

% 6

1% 6 # #%%

J %

% %

% / # ) 18.

The ratio culled out from above quoted decisions appears to be that in cases involving the State and its agencies while keeping in view that time is consumed in process of decision making, but no premium is to be given to lethargic approach or negligence on the part of officers of the State or its instrumentalities and the applications are not to be allowed as a matter of course in name of injury to public interest. The alleged sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay should not be lacking in bonafides or tainted with concoction or negligence. Legal right which stands accrued to a litigant as against his adversary by lapse of time should not be disturbed lightly on vague and irrelevant considerations. Delay which is unintentional and is result of the circumstances beyond the control of the litigant is liable to be condoned.

But, in a case where a litigant simply moves at his leisure and approaches the Court with an inordinate delay and the facts do not demonstrate that he was vigilant about his rights and the delay which has occurred was on account of circumstances beyond his control, he would not be entitled for condonation of delay. 19.

The facts of the case extracted by us in the preceding part of this judgement go to show that there has been delay at every stage. Except for mentioning dates of opinion expressed and communication issued by various officials and authorities of State Government and dates of receipt of the same, there is no explanation what occasioned the delay in movement of file from one official/authority to another. Though it is stated that delay has occasioned on account of procedure involved which were unavoidable, but the fact remains that right from the inception the officials/authorities concerned

were acting leisurely and failed to act with any diligence. In the total absence of any plausible and acceptable explanation the inordinate delay of more than one year in filing the appeal, in our opinion, is not liable to be condoned mechanically merely because State Government is an appellant before us.

20.

The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the government. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. The Court helps those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights.

21.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that delay is not liable to be condoned and accordingly application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed.

22.

As a consequence, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

23.

No order as to costs.

! "# $%&' Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No