Dismissed

Union of India v. Gopi Bag

Orissa HC4 Dec 2023LAA/131/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal filed by the Union of India, the Bench dismissed a petition for condonation of delay regarding substitution of a deceased respondent. The Court held that the delay was unexplained and cited Supreme Court precedent to reject mechanical condonation for government departments without bona fide effort.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Misc. Cases 52, 50, and 51 of 2017; consequent dismissal of the main appeal.

Union of India Vs Gopi Bag — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

LAA No.131 of 2008

¶3

Union of India

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. G. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Gopl Bag & Anr.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA

¶10

Order No. 16.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
04.12.2023
LAA No.131 of 2008 &
Misc. Case Nos.52 , 50 and 51 of 2017
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Misc. Case No.52 of 2017 has been filed for condonation
of delay in filing the application for substitution of Respondent
No.1 so also delay in filing application for setting aside the
abatement, for which separate Misc. Cases have been filed,
which have been registered as Misc. Case Nos.50 and 51 of 2017
respectively.

¶12

During pendency of this Appeal, notice being issued on 14.09.2019 to Respondent No.1, the same was returned unserved with a report that the Respondent No.1 has died on 09.02.2012. Thereafter, the matter was listed for orders before the Law Zimma Court on 07.10.2015 and it was ordered to take necessary steps for substitution of the deceased Respondent No.1, subject to

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

question of limitation, if any, to be taken within four weeks from the said date, failing which it was ordered to place the matter before the Bench for orders.

¶15

As no step was taken by the Union of India- Appellant in terms of the order dated 07.10.2015, matter got listed on 11.03.2016 before the Bench and again three weeks’ time, as prayed for, was allowed to the Appellant to take steps for substitution in respect of the deceased Respondent No.1. Ultimately, Misc. Case No.52 of 2017 was filed on 03.05.2017 without explaining the delay and simply stating in Para 5 of the application that after collecting necessary information regarding the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.1, the application has been filed for condonation of delay along with applications for setting aside the abatement and substitution.

¶16

Law is well settled that each days delay has to be explained. Though the Respondent No.1 has died on 09.02.2012, even if it is accepted that the fact of death of the deceased Respondent No.1 came to the notice of the Appellant-Union of India on 07.10.2015, the delay in filing the application in between 07.10.2015 to 03.05.2017 has not been properly explained.

¶17

The apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under:

¶18

“12) 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

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

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.

¶21

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. 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.

¶22

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

¶23

That apart, though this is an appeal of the year 2008, after filing of application, though the matter was listed on 31.08.2018

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

and thereafter on 13.07.2019 before the National Lok Adalat, no step was taken by the Appellant-Union of India for listing of this matter to expedite the process of disposal of these Misc. Cases pending since 2017.

¶26

Hence, the Misc. Case for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Accordingly, the other two Misc. Cases i.e. Misc. Cases Nos.50 and 51 of 2017, also stand dismissed.

¶27

As a consequence thereof, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶28

The registry is directed to communicate this order to the

¶29

referral court so also the private Respondent.

¶30

(S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE

¶31

Banita

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 05-Dec-2023 16:23:38

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Union of India v. Gopi Bag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Gopi Bag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanda Kishore Mallik Vs Jadi Mallik

Raghunath Vs Spl.Land Acquistion

Pramod Ku.Samantaray Vs Sail,Ispat Bhawan

Haridhan Dey Vs Addl.Dist,Magistrate

M/S.O.L.I.C.Ltd Vs Reg.Dir,Esic and Ors.

State Vs Bidyadhar Behera