High Court dismissed a writ appeal and condone delay application because the State failed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent despite specific orders and cautions regarding delay and procedural defects.
MC (W.A.) No. 13 of 2018 and W.A. No. 9 of 2018 dismissed for abatement as legal heirs were not impleaded despite court orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KABORA Digitally signed by MBAM KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2021.11.16 SINGH 17:29:38 +05'30'
Item No. 9 & 10 (Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
MC (W.A.) No. 13 of 2018 With
W.A. No. 9 of 2018
State of Manipur; & Ors.
Applicants/Appellants
Vs.
Majasinliu Kamei
Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
16.11.2021
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the applicants/appellants.
[2] The State of Manipur and its officials in the Education Department filed W.A. No. 9 of 2018, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.10.2016 passed in W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2013. However, claiming that there was a delay of 491 days on their part in doing so, they filed MC (W.A) No. 13 of 2018 to condone the same.
Be it noted that the judgment and order under appeal was passed as long back as on 19.10.2016 but the application for a certified copy thereof was made only on 30.01.2018. The writ appeal came to be filed on 26.04.2018 though the certified copy was made available on 21.02.2018.
MC (W.A) No. 13 of 2018 with W.A. No. 9 of 2018
Page 1
[3] Notice was ordered in the condone delay application on 30.04.2018 and the applicants/appellants were directed to take steps to effect service of notice upon the respondent/writ petitioner. On 04.06.2018, Mr. BR. Sharma, learned counsel, appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner and sought time to file objections. On 26.09.2019, this Court took note of the fact that the delay was not correctly shown and granted time to Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, to amend the condone delay application showing the actual number of days of delay, which was found to be nearly 522 days. No steps seem to have been taken in this regard but in the meanwhile, on 05.12.2019, Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel, informed the Court that the respondent/writ petitioner was no more and that he was instructed to give the details of her LRs to the other side. On 15.04.2021, Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, informed the Court that the list of legal heirs of the deceased respondent has been furnished to him and sought time to verify and take suitable steps. However, as no steps were taken in that regard, this Court passed an order on 17.09.2021 to the effect that Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate, should take necessary steps at least by the next date of hearing failing which the case would be rejected peremptorily. The matter was adjourned to 16.11.2021.
Today, we find that no steps have been taken to implead the LRs of the deceased respondent/writ petitioner despite the caution sounded on the last occasion that the matter would be dismissed for such failure.
[4] Given the aforestated facts, the lack of seriousness on the part of the applicants/appellants in prosecuting this case is manifest. Lack of application of mind in calculating the days of delay correctly only strengthens this opinion.
MC (W.A) No. 13 of 2018 with
W.A. No. 9 of 2018
Page 2
Despite ample time being granted and in spite of a specific order cautioning them that the case would be dismissed if they failed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, no steps have been taken.
[5] In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold against the applicants/appellants on this technical ground. It is not open to the authorities to assume, as a matter of course, that delays on their part in appealing against orders would be condoned for the mere asking and that procedural norms need to be respected only by default.
The condone delay application and, in consequence, the writ appeal are accordingly dismissed as having abated for want of necessary steps being taken within time.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to
the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
MC (W.A) No. 13 of 2018 with W.A. No. 9 of 2018
Page 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal and condone delay application should be dismissed for failure to implead legal heirs of the deceased respondent within the stipulated time.
Whether condonation of delay is automatic or requires bona fide explanation and procedural compliance.
State of Manipur
Majasinliu Kamei
Sandeep Singh
MV Muralidaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
