Jammu, Sep 20: In LPA No.137/2022 CM No. 7215/2022 CM No. 7126/2022 titled UT of J&K and others V/s Kafeel Ahmed after hearing a DB of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDERED as:-
20.09.2023 TASHI RABSTAN,J
1. CM No.7125/2022 is an application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 951 days in filing the appeal.
2. In support of his submissions, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing vice Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG for the applicants submits that the judgment against which the appeal is sought to be filed is passed on 14.02.2020. The sanction to file the appeal was granted on 28.09.2022. The appeal is filed on 21.11.2022. Hence, the delay of 951 days is caused in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay caused on the part of the State in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the grounds in the appeal are strong on merits and the applicants are sure to succeed in the appeal and in case the delay is not condoned, the appeal be not heard on merits.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused this application.
6. On perusal of the application seeking condonation, it would transpire that the applicants are not serious in filing the appeal on time as they have not bothered themselves to even give the conspectus of events which entailed a delay of 951 days in filing the appeal. This would lead to only one inescapable conclusion that the applicants have pursued the case in a very nonchalant manner.
There is also no plausible and cogent explanation for seeking condonation of delay. The only reason given for the delay is that the competent authority was considering the review of SRO 520.
It is also not a case where the judgment impugned has been passed exparte and the applicants were oblivious of the same.
The judgment is passed on 14.02.2020 and the applicants were represented by Mr. Sudesh Magotra, the then Dy. AG. No explanation has been tendered in the application which could justify the time which the applicants have taken in filing the appeal.
7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7595-96 of 2011 dated 24.02.2012) titled Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. and Another on account of no proper explanation for delay observed as under:- “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 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 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” & also quoted some more judgements on delay.
9. Having regard to above referred judgments, it suggests that the applicants have perceived delay in a cavalier manner as a routine matter and its lackadaisical tendency is exhibited by its nonchalant manner in which the applicants have pursued the matter.
The reasons for such delay are not forthcoming from the application.
Further, from perusal of delay condonation application would show that clear 53 days were squandered after having sanction from the competent authority. The delay caused by the State after obtaining sanction is also not explained at all.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and the settled law position, we do not find any merit in the application seeking condonation of delay of 951 days in filing the appeal and accordingly, the delay condonation application (CM No.7215/2022) is dismissed.
11. As a result thereof, the accompanied appeal i.e. LPA No.137/2022 is also dismissed along with connected CM.
|