Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Kamla Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2011RSA/1686/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an application by the State of Haryana to condone a delay of over five years in filing a second appeal. The court held that the application contained vague averments, lacked specific dates, and offered no justification regarding departmental inquiries or action against erring officials.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; second appeal not entertained and dismissed.

State of Haryana Vs Kamla Devi — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 8.9.2011

¶6

State of Haryana and Others

¶7

... Appellants

¶8

Smt. Kamla Devi

¶9

Versus ... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Rattan Sidhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant.

¶12

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶13

Civil Misc. No. 5076-C of 2010

¶14

The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 1905 days (5 years 2 months & 20 days) in filing of the present regular second appeal. It is stated in the application that the appeal, preferred by the appellant, was dismissed by the District Judge, Narnaul, on 9.2.2005 and after obtaining the certified copy of judgment and decree, the same was sent to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana, for filing the present regular second appeal but the said office required some more relevant documents from the concerned department and the file was sent back to the department in the year 2005. After the receipt of file, the required documents were not found and the same were collected from some

¶15

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

other Branch/Head Office. During that period, the concerned official was transferred and the file remained in the office. Due to shortage of staff, the file could not be taken up. When the fresh list of pending cases was prepared then the file was found in the record room and the same was sent to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana, on 26.10.2009.

¶18

The grounds, taken in the application for condonation of delay, are too vague, general and omnibus. The details are lacking as to on which date, the file was sent to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana and when it was returned. All the material details are being withheld as to when the records were gathered, when it was assigned to the official and as to why the case was not followed up.

¶19

A delay of 5 years 2 month and 20 days is too long, same cannot be condoned on the vague averments made in the application. Furthermore, to justify the delay, no action has been initiated against any erring departmental official. Even no averment has been made regarding the inquiry proposed or held to take departmental action against the delinquent employee.

¶20

Though it has been held by the Courts that the delay in the case of appeals filed by the State or Government should be liberally condoned but there is no absolute immunity given to the State to file the appeal giving go-by to the general principles of limitations. The applicant has miserably failed to show that any justifiable cause is made to condone the delay.

¶21

It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another 2010 (2) Recent Civil Reports 284 as

¶22

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

under:-

¶25

“8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2

¶26

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

SCC 107 , N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106 . In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142 , State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 , State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 , State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635 , State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752 , and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582 .”

¶29

The law laid down in Oriental Aroma Chemicals Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) is fully applicable on the facts of the present case

¶30

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010 (O&M) 5

¶31

also. As the applicants have failed to offer any plausible or tangible explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the applicant.

¶32

As a result of the above discussion and law propounded by

¶33

Hon’ble the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemicals Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) , this Court is constrained to dismiss the present application.

¶34

Regular Second Appeal No. 1686 of 2010

¶35

In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay of 1905 days (five years, two months and 20 days) in filing of the present appeal, as a consequence thereof, the present appeal cannot be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶36

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶37

September 8, 2011

¶38

“DK”

State of Haryana v. Kamla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Kamla Devi

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

Gurmail Singh Vs Balwant Singh & Ors.

Vipan Kumar Sharma Vs Ludhiana Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Roshan Oil Mills Vs Kamla Devi and Ors.

Jagdev Singh Vs Hoshiar Singh & Ors.

Jitender Chaudhary Vs Kanhiya Lal

Saudagar Singh and Ors. Vs Resham Singh and Anr.