The
Supreme Court on Friday warned the Union government and its departments
that bureaucratic delays could not be cited as an excuse or a ground
for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation of 90 days.
A
Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and J. Chelamesar said: “the law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the government. 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.”
Writing
the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “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.”
The
Bench said: “It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for
fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a
lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are
meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but
avail of their legal remedies promptly.”
In the instant case, Living Media India Ltd., which publishes Reader's Digest and India Todaymagazines,
was denied permission by the Postal Department to avail of the
concession to post the magazines along with booklets containing certain
advertisements. The Delhi High Court, allowed the writ petition filed by
the company and a Division Bench also upheld the single judge's order.
Former
Attorney General and senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, arguing for the
respondent, pointed out that since in this case the Postal Department
had filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court after a delay of 427
days, it should not be entertained. However, Additional Solicitor
General Harin Raval cited earlier decisions to justify the ground for
condonation of delay.
The Bench said:
“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.
“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.”
The Bench noted that even the certified order copy was obtained only after four months.
The
Bench said: “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. 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 Bench, while dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay, did not go into the issue on merits.
· Postal Department filed appeal after a delay of 427 days
· No proper explanation offered by department for the delay
Source : thehindu dtd 24/02/212
0 comments:
Post a Comment