ORDER :

1. A bail order passed in NDPS matter is sought to be assailed on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The order of bail was passed on 20.12.2018 and the appeal has been filed after a delay of 607 days.

2. In our view, the explanation given is hardly satisfactory and, in fact, is a saga of gross negligence on the part of the concerned officers for prosecuting the remedy. The dates set out in the application show that on 06.02.2019, a proposal to file the special leave petition was sent by the zone to the NCB Headquarters and the Headquarters asked for additional documents on 26.02.2019. Thereafter, the documents were submitted on 16.07.2019.

3. The saga continues of these delays!

4. We have been repeatedly deprecating the practice of authorities coming before this Court after inordinate delays assuming as if the Law of Limitation does not apply to them. Repeatedly, reliance is placed on the judgments of vintage when technology was not easily available. No reference is made to the subsequent judgment in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. –(2012) 3 SCC 563 which has dealt with the issue that consideration of the ability of the Government to file appeal in time would have to be dealt with in the context of the technology now available and merely shuffling files from one table to the other would no more be a sufficient reason.

5. We have also categorized such cases as “certificate cases”. We have specified the object to file such cases to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, record that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is a completion of formality with endeavourer to save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the appropriate legal process in time. The irony is that despite our repeated orders, very little is done at least in taking action against concerned officers who sit on files and do nothing. The presumption is as if this Court will condone the delay for the asking. We refuse to follow such a course. [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal, SLP [C] D. No.9217/2020] dated 15.10.2020 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Uday N. Murdukar, [SLP [C] Diary No.9228/2020] decided on 15.10.2020.

6. We have been imposing costs for wasting judicial time in such matters which are filed with this oblique motive of saving the officers. We thus, consider appropriate to follow the same action in the present case and impose costs of Rs.25,000/-on the petitioner to be recovered from the officers concerned. The cost be deposited in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks along with the certificate of recovery from the officers concerned.

7. A copy of the order be placed before the Director General, NCB for remedial action as many cases of this kind are coming and as informed by the learned ASG there were four other cases apart from one more case before us today itself. We also make it clear to the Director General that non-compliance of our aforesaid direction would invite consequential proceedings against the Director General.

8. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

9. Pending application stands disposed of.