Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVIN SINHA and VIKASH JAIN, JJ.
The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna, Bihar - Appellants
Versus
A 2 Z Infrastructure Ltd. through its Legal Executive, Mr. Ankur Gupta & Ors. - Respondents
LPA No. 729 of 2013
Decided On: 7-05-2014
For the Appellant : Mr. H.S. Himkar, Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh.
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore.
For the Respondents: M/s. Y.V. Giri, Anurag Saurav.
Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5-Limitation-Existence of "Sufficient cause" is precondition to condonation or denial of same-It cannot be given a fixed connotation or tested with rigidity-Its meaning and interpretation will depend on facts and circumstances of each case-Consideration of "sufficient cause" cannot be confined to number of days delay or availability or non-availability of day to day explanation only-It has to be considered along with all surrounding circumstances, settled law on the subject and larger public interest as also considerations of equity and justice-Law of limitation cannot be considered as a procedural sword to be wielded at will or a weapon to defeat what may be legitimate claims merely on the ground of accrued rights or finality to litigation-Larger public interest involved is an important aspect for judicious exercise of discretion-This exercise of discretion by Court must display adequate consideration of mind to whole gamut of issues involved and a myopic approach based on number of days of delay or absence of day to day explanation shall not be proper exercise of discretion-At times even a short delay may not warrant condonation for absence of "sufficient cause" while at times longer delay may require exercise of discretion to condone-Complete lack of bonafides and negligence are issues which stand apart. (Paras 9 and 10)
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5-Limitation-There has to be difference in interpreting "sufficient cause" when litigation is qua private parties for private rights only-It will be different when one party is government, effect being confined to individual claims not affecting larger public interest-Where larger public interest is involved beyond individual or has effect beyond immediate case considerations will have to be very different-Government is an impersonal body where no individual has a personal interest but pursues matters in litigation as part of official duty-Desire in the Bureaucracy not to singularly accept responsibility for decision making is another factor which delays decision making process as proposal moves from one level to another and approval is required from more than one person-Matters involving very large sums of public money cannot be weighed on golden scales of limitation without considering issues with regard to public money generated as tax payer’s expense-Different considerations may arise when amount involved is reasonable or small. (Para 11)
(2011)5 SCC 607; AIR 1968 SC 222; (1987)2 SCC 720; 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 286; (1996)3 SCC 132; (1987) 2 SCC 107; (1988)2 SCC 142; (1998)7 SCC 141; (2013)14 SCC 370; (2005)3 SCC 752; (2009)2 SCC 689; (2009)15 SCC 177; (2012)5 SCC 157; (2010)5 SCC 459; 2014(1) PLJR (SC) 290-Relied.
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
I.A. No. 4195 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 368 days in filing the Appeal.
2. The Bihar Urban Development Agency under the Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, invited expression of interest for solid waste management in the town of Patna. After competitive bidding agreement was signed on 9.1.2010 between the respondent Company and the Appellant Municipal Corporation. The agreement inter alia provided for payment of 75% claim of monthly bills within ten working days and the remaining 25% after verification within a period of twenty days from the former payment. Bills were raised by the respondent from January 2010 till July 2011 for works done. The respondent Company is stated to have deposited Rs.10,83,59,873.53p as government taxes for the works in question. No payments whatsoever having been made it stopped further works on 20.6.2011. The writ petition was then filed for payment of Rs. 7,62,65,817.00 with 18% interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim with 8% interest. Hence the appeal by the Municipal Corporation.
3. Learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation fairly stated that the respondent Company did work under the contract from January 2010 till July 2011. The agreement was not terminated for failure or inability to discharge obligations. But the respondent was entitled to payment of legitimate dues only. The bills raised were found to be exaggerated. It is entitled to payments only as admitted by the Corporation. The Corporation has examined the bills, assessed the legitimate dues and by a detailed note has forwarded it to the State Government in the Urban Development Department for approval on 23.7.2011. As soon as approval is received due payments shall be made. Since the amount claimed under the contract was denied and disputed by the Corporation the Learned Single Judge, in Writ jurisdiction could not have allowed payment beyond that admitted. The contract also contains an arbitration clause without availing which the writ petition had been filed and allowed.
4. Since the approval for payment was pending before the Department of Urban Development, it was also officially debated if appeal be filed after decision is taken by the Urban development Department. The High Court Rules have been amended. It is mandatory for the appellant to file complete two legible sets of all the pleadings filed by the parties along with annexures before the Writ Court. The complete brief of the Writ Court was voluminous and runs into approximately 800 pages. Collation of all pleadings, verification to ensure their being legible, study of the same again to file the appeal therefore took some time. The delay in filing the appeal was therefore bonafide as administrative decisions had to be taken. Since a very large amount of public money is involved it is only proper that the delay be condoned and the matter heard on merits. No prejudice shall be caused to the respondent Company since the Municipal Corporation does not deny liability to pay and is in the process of quantification of the dues to be paid for which necessary action has already been taken.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Company opposes condonation of delay. It is submitted that there is no explanation worth the name much less has day to day delay been explained. The appeal was filed only after the respondent filed the Contempt application. Relying on (2009) 3 SCC 525 (Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court) it is submitted that unless delay is condoned, the merits of the case cannot be looked into. Reliance is next placed on (2012) 3 SCC 563 (Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited) to submit that no special latitude can be given to the Municipal Corporation merely because it is a government department. Reference was also made to (2013) 4 SCC 52 (Amalendu Kumar Bera V. State of West Bengal in support of the same. Reliance was further placed on (201
