Dismissed¶10

Union of India v. M/S Padit Trading Company

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2025CMA/2335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; government department; bureaucratic methodology; departmental/administrative procedures; law of limitation binds Government; procedural red tape; absence of diligence; Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 556; State of UP v Sabha Narain (2022) 9 SCC 266; Rajasthan HC Jaipur; D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 2335/2022; delay not condoned; appeal dismissed; K.R. Shriram CJ; Maneesh Sharma J; 25/08/2025.

What did the court decide?

The defence of bureaucratic methodology cannot and should not be accepted by the Courts; where there is absence of diligence by the department in prosecuting a matter, delay cannot be condoned (law as laid down by the Apex Court, applied by this Court). ¶7

Union of India Vs M/S Padit Trading Company — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:33446-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2335/2022

¶4

Union Of India, Through Mg. ASC, hq, south western command, jaipur.

¶5

Commandant Supply Depot, Asc Bhatinda (Punjab).

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Padit Trading Company, Address-396, Rudra Sadan, Acharya Mohalla, Village And Post Jethana, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) Through Authorized Representative Shri Hitesh Acharya.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumit Teterwal

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order

¶12

25/08/2025

¶13

The application is to condone delay of approximately 40 days.

¶14

The application states that after the impugned order dated 29^th April 2022 was passed, copy of order along with counsel’s legal opinion dated 06^th May 2022 was received by the officer commanding 303 Coy ASC on 10^th May 2022. From there, the matter started moving from table to table and ultimately after receiving consent from the authorities, the appeal came to be filed on 08^th August 2022.

¶15

Though number of days delay may not be many, from the application it is obvious it is the bureaucratic approach of appellant that has resulted in delay. The delay is due to departmental/administrative procedures.

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:33446-DB]

¶18

[CMA-2335/2022]

¶19

The Apex Court in the case of Post Master General And Others Vs. Living Media India Limited And Another¹ , was considering an application to condone delay of about 427 days. In that application also the applicant, i.e., a Postal Department had given reasons for the delay and one of the reason was that the delay was not intentional, but, was on account of the departmental/administrative procedure involved in filing the Petition for special leave. It was also submitted that unlike the private ligation, matters relating to the Government are required to be considered at various levels and then only a decision is taken. For the said reasons, the delay caused in filing the Petition was a result of all necessary and unavoidable office formalities and was bonafide and not deliberate or intentional. The Apex Court held that the law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot accepted in view of modern technology being used and available. Absence of diligence cannot be a reason to condone delay as condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Department. The Court also held that usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape, cannot be accepted.

¶20

5. Paragraphs 22, 26 to 29, read as under:

¶21

“22. In CWT vs. Amateur Riders Club, there was a delay of 264 days in filing the SLP by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay. The explanation for the delay had been set out in the petitioner's own words as under: (SCC p. 604, para 2)

¶22

"2. ...(g) The Advocate-on-Record got the special leave petition drafted from the drafting Advocate and sent the same for approval to the Board on 24-6-1993 along with the case file.

¶23

1 (2012) 3 SCC 556

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[2025:RJ-JP:33446-DB]

¶26

[CMA-2335/2022]

¶27

(h) The Board returned the case file to the Advocate-on Record on 9-7-1993 who re-sent the same to the Board on 20-9-1993 requesting that draft SLP was not approved by the Board. The Board after approving the draft SLP sent this file to CAS on 1-101993."

¶28

After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus: (SCC p. 604, para 3)

¶29

"3. ... .... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.

¶30

[emphasis supplied]

¶31

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

29. 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

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

[2025:RJ-JP:33446-DB]

¶37

[CMA-2335/2022]

¶38

was bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

¶39

Post Master General (Supra) came to be considered once again by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sabha Narain and Ors.² , where paragraph 3 reads as under:

¶40

“3. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of M.P. v. Bherulal and State of Odisha v. Sunanda Mahakuda. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. Despite this, there seems to be little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.”

¶41

(Emphasis supplied)

¶42

Therefore one thing is clear from the law as laid down by the Apex Court is that the defence of bureaucratic methodology cannot be and should not be accepted by the Courts and when there is absence of diligence by department in prosecuting a matter, delay cannot be condoned. It is also clear that the condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government department by offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape.

¶43