Hrtc Vs Balwant Singh

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5507 of 2025 titled Balwant Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and is barred by 478 days in filing the appeal.

¶12

2. Counsel for the appellant-Corporation has tried to convince us that there was delay on account of the fact that the case was being examined at the different levels and therefore, the sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. We are

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2

¶15

not convinced with the said sufficient cause rather the application itself would go on to show that there has been apathy and total negligence and in action on the part of the appellant-Corporation in pursuing the present litigation.

¶16

3. The certified copy of the judgment dated 24.08.2024 was only applied after five months on 23.01.2025 and was duly supplied 24.02.2025 and thereafter the appeal has been filed 16.05.2025.

¶17

4. The explanation which has been given is that since the writ petitioner did not submit his representation in time upto 06.01.2025 and therefore the file was only put-up on 13.01.2025 when the representation was received on 07.01.2025 by the concerned dealing hand and the case was then examined at different levels and it was decided to file the appeal on 13.02.2025. The same was approved by the Competent Authorities on 17.02.2025, since the certified copy was received on 24.02.2025, the appeal was finally filed without any delay.

¶18

5. We are of the considered opinion that from 24.08.2024 till 13.01.2025, there is studied silence as such on behalf of the appellant-Corporation who did not even bother to apply for the certified copy or even check-up that they had to file an appeal though having been duly represented before the

¶19

3

¶20

learned Single Judge by the counsel(s). The responsibility or the justification being sought is being shifted upon the writ petitioner would only go on to show that there is lack of sufficient cause as it was the duty of the appellant-Corporation as such to file the appeal and not wait for the writ petitioner to come to them seeking the compliance of the said judgment. Therefore for the want of any sufficient cause by the Corporation from 24.08.2024 till 23.01.2025, we are not in a position to condone the delay of five months. Similarly there is another delay, once the copy was received on 24.02.2025 and there was a delay in filing the appeal till 16.05.2025 and there is not even a whisper as to why it took almost three months to file the appeal.

¶21

6. The Apex Court has time and again come down heavily on the State Authorities, whereby it chooses to file the appeal at a belated stage and attempting to take away the vested right which has now accrued upon the writ petitioner.

¶22

7. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2010) 5 SCC 459, Chief Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and the principle laid down in Esha Bhattachargee vs. Managing

¶23

4

¶24

Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649.

¶25

8. Thus, keeping in view the above facts that the appellant-Corporation cannot be given total unfettered free play and its conduct and behavior and negligent attitude which are relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration. Though the State authorities is always given some latitude but do not have a right as such to file appeals at a belated stage without showing sufficient cause.

¶26

9. In Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs, decided on 08.01.2025, it has been held that the rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity, no Court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time. Only, if the sufficient cause has been assigned by the litigant and it is the Court which owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation and in such circumstances, the limitation has to be condoned.

¶27

9. Having examined the record as such in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered

¶28

5

¶29

opinion that the appellant-Corporation has not been able to make out the case for condonation of delay on account of its own deficiency. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶30

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall

¶31

also stand disposed of.

¶32

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶33

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶34

11^th March, 2026

¶35

(Munish Thakur)