1. Special Leave Petition filed with significant delay — Application for condonation of delay based on internal administrative correspondence. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 897
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Radhey Shyam - Respondent
SLP (Civil) Diary No(S). 25547/2020 (Arising Out of impugned final Judgment and order dated 06-09-2018 in WA No. 28657/2011 passed by The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
Decided On : 28-01-2021
Important Points
Points Of Law : Leeway which was given to Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown
Subject
Delay in Filing Special Leave Petition - Condonation of Delay
Headnote
Constitution of India1950 - Special Leave Petition - Condonation of delay - Itself shows casual manner in which petitioners have approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay - In fact other than lethargy and incompetence of petitioners there is nothing which has been put on record – Court have repeatedly discouraged Central Government/State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring period of limitation prescribed by Statutes as if Limitation statute does not apply to them - In this behalf suffice to refer to our judgment in State of and leeway which was given to Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus greater indulgence was shown.
Finding Of The Court :
Court have also categorized such kind of cases as certificate cases filed with only object to obtain a quietus from Supreme Court on ground that nothing could be done because highest Court has dismissed appeal - Objective is to complete a mere formality and save skin of officers who may be in default in following due process or may have done it deliberately - Court have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again - Court refuse to grant such certificates and if Government/public authorities suffer losses it is time when concerned officers responsible for same bear consequences - Irony emphasized by us repeatedly is that no action is ever taken against officers and if Court pushes it some mild warning is all that happens.
Result : Petition is dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.S. Suri, Ld. ASG, for the Appellant; Mr. Amit Sharma B., Advocate., Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. R.S. Suri, Ld. ASG, for the Appellant; Mr. Amit Sharma B., Advocate., Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek condonation of delay based on internal administrative processing and correspondence between government offices. (Para 1 )
3. Government authorities cannot ignore limitation periods due to innate inefficiencies; certificate cases filed to shield defaulting officers are deprecated. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Limitation statutes apply equally to government authorities; administrative lethargy or incompetence does not constitute a plausible ground for condonation of delay. (Para 2 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed as time-barred — Costs imposed to be recovered from responsible officers. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Does the limitation period apply differently to government authorities?
No. Government and public authorities cannot ignore the period of limitation prescribed by statutes. The court has discouraged the approach that they can approach the Supreme Court at will, noting that previous indulgences based on technological limitations are no longer prevalent. (Para 2 )
7. What are certificate cases in the context of government appeals?
Certificate cases are appeals filed by government authorities primarily to obtain a dismissal from the Supreme Court. This provides a quietus, allowing defaulting officers to avoid accountability by claiming that the highest court has already dismissed the matter. (Para 3 )
8. Can internal administrative delays be used as a ground for condonation of delay?
No. Internal lethargy, incompetence, or a casual approach to filing, evidenced by mere internal correspondence without cogent or plausible grounds, is insufficient for the condonation of delay. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The Special Leave Petition has been filed with delay of 714 days with an explanation given in the application for condonation of delay as under:
| "5.2.2019 | The GM (P) NR/NDLS has further sent a |
| 15.2.2019 | Letter to DRM/NR/LKO with other some queries and same was received by DRM/NR/LKO. |
| 28.6.2019 | The case was further examined and the reply of the above queries sent to the GM(P) NR/NDLS. |
| 6.8.2019 | The GM(P) NR/NDLS has further sent a letter to DRM/NR/LKO with other some queries and same was received by DRM/NR/LKO. |
| 17.1.2020 | As per discussion with SPO/Legal/NR/NDLS and the case was further examined and the reply of the above queries along with required document was sent to the GM(P) NR/NDLS. |
| 25.2.2020 | The case was sent to Railway Board by the GM(P)/ NR/NDLS. |
| 21.8.2020 | The reminder was sent to Railway Board by the GM(P)/NR/NDLS. |
| 25.9.2020 | The draft of SLP was received in HQ |
| 5.10.2020 | Qrs. office from Railway Board and same was received in DRM office NR/LKO from HQ Qrs. Office for vetting of SLP." |
2. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioners have approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioners, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged Central Government/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 judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. 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 Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. - (2012) 3 SCC 563 . Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.
3. We have also categorized such kind of cases as "certificate cases" filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.
4. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the same period of time.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid.
5. A copy of this order be placed before the Chairman,
