Back
2012 Supreme(SC) 2686
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain, Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik - Petitioner
Versus
Rajmal Lakhichand and another - Respondent
SLP (C) No. 28857 of 2011
Decided On : 10-02-2012
For the Appellant :- B. Bhattacharya, ASG, Judy James, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Sachit Kumar Sahijpal, A.K. Sharma, Ajay Singh, Nimisha Swamp, Neera Dadhwal and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Soli Sorabjee and Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Preetesh Kapur, Seema Bengani, Sanbha Giri Rumnong and Kailash Chand, Advocates.
Inordinate delay in filing a special leave petition without sufficient cause is not acceptable.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Special Leave Petition - The court dismissed the special leave petition due to inordinate delay of 317 days in filing the petition. The court also directed an enquiry to fix responsibility for the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The court found inordinate delay of 317 days in filing the special leave petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the special leave petition due to the inordinate delay. It also directed an enquiry to fix responsibility for the delay.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in filing the special leave petition without sufficient cause is not acceptable.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed due to inordinate delay, and an enquiry was directed to fix responsibility for the delay.
ORDER :
D.K. Jain and Anil R. Dave, JJ. - Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay, we are not satisfied that a sufficient cause is made out for condonation of inordinate delay of 317 days in filing the present special leave petition.
2. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed on that short ground alone.
3. However, before parting with the case, we would request the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, to have an enquiry conducted, by a senior officer, in order to fix the responsibility on the officer(s) responsible for causing delay in preferring the present petition.
4. It is pertinent to note that in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29989 of 2010, arising out of the same judgment, filed by the Respondent, show cause notice was served on the Department sometime in the month of November, 2010 and counter affidavit on their behalf was filed in January, 2011. Thus, it cannot be pleaded on behalf of the concerned Commissioner ate that they were not aware of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Yet, for the reasons best known to the department, the present special leave petition was filed only in the month of June, 2011.
5. We are confident that all these factors will be taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. The enquiry shall be completed within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. The Chairman shall submit his report within two weeks thereafter for being placed before us.
6. The office shall forward a copy of this order to the Chairman for compliance.
