Dismissed

State of Hp and Others v. Sant Ram and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Jun 2024CMP.M/622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 213-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The court held the applicants were negligent in failing to file within the limitation period, rejecting bureaucratic delays and counsel availability as valid excuses.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; unregistered LPA dismissed.

State of Hp and Others Vs Sant Ram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

( 2024:HHC:3213 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶4

CMP(M) No.622 of 2024 in LPA (e-Filing No.EC-HPHC01-0009-2024) Reserved on: 30.05.2024 Pronounced on:11.06.2024

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Applicants/Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sant Ram & Another …Respondents

¶8

________________________________________________________________ Coram:

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?

¶11

For applicants/appellants : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. Leela Nand Sharma, Additional Advocate Generls with Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General.

¶12

For the respondents : Nemo.

¶13

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice .

¶14

This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 12.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in CWPOA no.2469 of 2020.

¶15

In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that

¶16

the applicants had downloaded copy of judgment and sent to the concerned

¶17

¶18

quarters for further action on 26.08.2023; that it was examined at various levels

¶19

in the office of the applicants and then it was sent to the State Government on 11.10.2023; and on 01.11.2023, the Law Department granted approval to file the LPA and the same was filed on 26.02.2024.

¶20

A perusal of the certified copy of the impugned judgment dt. 12.07.2023, passed in CWPOA no.2469 of 2020 (which is filed along with the accompanying LPA) indicates that though the judgment by the learned Single Judge was passed on 12.07.2023, application for certified copy of the same was made on 20.12.2023, five months later; and an incorrect statement has been made in the application that there was some decision taken on the basis of a downloaded copy of the judgment which had been sent to the concerned quarters on 26.08.2023.

¶21

Even assuming that the said plea is factually correct, when the Law Department opined to file the LPA on 01.11.2023, why the applicants had to wait till 26.02.2024 to file the appeal is not explained, except stating that the Additional Advocate General had a busy schedule and there was a Winter Vacation intervening.

¶22

Admittedly, since the Winter Vacation of the Court was from 14.01.2024 till 26.02.2024, it cannot be said that the Additional Advocate General was busy during the Court vacation and he did not find time to vet the LPA draft.

¶23

In view of these circumstances, we are satisfied that the applicants/appellants have been negligent in taking steps to file the LPA within

¶24

¶25

the time permitted by law and that no sufficient cause has been shown by the

¶26

applicants for condoning the said period of delay.

¶27

7. In Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and

¶28

another¹ , the Supreme Court held: -

¶29

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

¶30

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person incharge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

¶31

1 (2012) 3 SCC 563

¶32

¶33

27. 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.

¶34

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 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.”

¶35

The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.² , Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.³ ; Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & others⁴ ; Union of India & others vs . Vishnu Aroma

¶36

2 (2022) 3 SCC 159

¶37

3 (2022) 2 SCC 327

¶38

4 (2021) 11 SCC 557

¶39

¶40

Pouching Private Limited and another⁵ ; and State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Sabha Narain & others⁶ .

¶41

Learned Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & others Vs. Union of India & another, Civil Appeal no. 5867 of 2015 dt. 09.10.2023.

¶42

In Sheo Raj Singh , the High Court had condoned the delay of 479 days in filing a Land Acquisition Appeal in the High Court and the explanation offered found favour with the Supreme Court.

¶43

In that case, the Supreme Court observed that it was not hearing an application for condonation of delay, but was sitting in appeal over discretionary exercise of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay; that in the case of the former, whether to condone or not, would be the only question, whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of prayer for condonation, would be the question; and the law was well settled that a Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary exercise by the Courts below; and that the appellate power should be exercised only when the order of appeal is clearly wrong and not when it is merely not right.

¶44

The said decision, therefore, cannot help the applicants since in the instant application, this Court has to consider the question whether sufficient

¶45

cause has been shown to condone the said period of delay in filing the Letters

¶46

5 (2022) 9 SCC 263

¶47

6 (2022) 9 SCC 266

¶48

¶49

Patent Appeal. It is not considering whether a Tribunal/Court subordinate to it was right in condoning or refusing to condone the delay.

¶50

Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Manipur and Ors. vs. Koting Lamkang⁷ .

¶51

That was a case where the State had preferred an RFA against an order of

¶52

a Single Judge of the High Court, declining to condone delay of 312 days in filing a Regular First Appeal. The State had contended that being under a bonafide mistake, it had wrongly filed an appeal before the District Judge instead of the High Court and the said Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

¶53

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court observing that regard should be had to the impersonal nature of the Government’s functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly, resulting in injustice to institutional interest of the State.

¶54

This case is distinguishable in the sense that there was an appeal filed within limitation, but in a wrong forum . It was not a case like the instant case where no appeal at all was filed within limitation.

¶55

Also in this judgment, the attention of the Court was not drawn to the judgment in Post Master General (supra-1) and other cases following it, referred to in Para 8 above.

¶56

7 (2019) 10 SCC 408

¶57

¶58

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the applicants/appellants have been

¶59

negligent in taking steps to file the appeal within time and there is no sufficient cause shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 213 days in filing the appeal.

¶60

According, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the unregistered LPA is dismissed.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶62

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice

¶63

June 11, 2024 (Yashwant)

¶64

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge

State of Hp and Others v. Sant Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Sant Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Bajaj Vs Union of India

Gian Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

M/S Oasys Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Ramanand and Others

Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Others Vs Honourable Speaker Hp Legislative Assembly and Others

M/S Zenith Event and Services and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others