IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVAJI PANDEY, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
The Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - Appellant
Versus
The Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1058, 999, 1001, 1003, 1048, 1049, 1052, 1055, 1057, 1059, 1060, 1061 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4438, 4439 of 2009, 13205 of 2010, 493 of 2017, 21, 22 of 2018
Decided On : 24-10-2019
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) - UNION OF INDIA - LEVY SUGAR - REFUND - WRIT PETITIONS - REVIEW APPLICATIONS - DELAY IN FILING APPEALS - EXPLANATION - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
FCI and the Union of India filed Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment and order passed in writ petitions and review applications. The appeals were filed with delay. FCI and the Union of India filed limitation petitions for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the delay in filing the appeals was condoned as sufficient cause was shown. The Court observed that there was no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the appellants. The Court further observed that the primary duty is to see that on technical grounds, an arguable case should not be dismissed.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned as sufficient cause was shown. The Court observed that there was no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the appellants. The Court further observed that the primary duty is to see that on technical grounds, an arguable case should not be dismissed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the limitation petitions and condoned the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals.
ORDER :
SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. All these Letters Patent Appeals are arising from the common order passed in different writ petitions as well as review applications and in all the appeals limitation petitions have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter mentioned as “the F.C.I.”) filed the appeals against the judgment and order passed in three writ petitions as well as against the orders passed in the three review applications. Similarly, the Union of India has also filed appeals against the order passed in the three writ petitions as well as against the order passed in three review applications. Altogether 12 appeals have been filed by the Food Corporation of India as well as the Union of India.
3. In all the cases, the matter relates to refund of amount of supply of levy sugar for the period 1995-96, which has been turned down by the Food Corporation of India with the simple excuse that they would be taken up after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the F.C.I. against the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2002.
4. While considering the petitions for condonation of delay, we do not feel it appropriate to deliberate the merit of the cases, but only confining with the issue of condonation of delay in filing different appeals as six appeals are arising from the common order passed in the writ petitions, in which there is a long delay in filing the appeals and another set of six appeals are arising from the order passed in the review applications, their delay is quite different than to the appeals arising from the common order passed in the writ petitions. As the common order is under challenge in all the cases, we feel it necessary to deal with the facts of these cases separately for convenience of the parties as well as for the Court.
5. C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009 (M/S. Riga Sugar Company Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors.), C.W.J.C. No.4439 of 2009 (M/S. Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited vs. The Union of India and Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2010 (M/S. Sasa Musa Sugar Works Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.) were heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 27.02.2017. In all the three cases, review applications were filed by the Food Corporation of India in the following manner:-
Civil Review No. 22 of 2018 was filed on 17.01.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009, Civil Review No. 21 of 2018 was filed on 17.01.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 4439 of 2010 and Civil Review No. 493 of 2017 was filed on 14.01.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 13205 of 2010. All the Civil Review Applications were filed by the Food Corporation of India, making prayer to review the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in above three writ petitions and this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 disposed of all the review applications and the judgment of the same was uploaded on the website on 20.05.2019.
6. L.P.A. No.1001 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4438 of 2009, L.P.A. No. 999 of 2019 is arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13205 of 2010 and L.P.A. No. 1003 of 2019 is also arising from the judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4439 of 2009. All these L.P.As have been filed on 17.08.2019 by the Food Corporation of India.
7. Similarly, L.P.A. No. 1052 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review no. 21 of 2018, L.P.A. No.1049 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review No. 22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 1048 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review no. 493 of 2017. All these L.P.As have been filed on 23.08.2019 by the Food Corporation of India against the order passed in civil review applications.
8. L.P.A. No. 1055 of 2019 is arising from the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Civil Review No.
Union of India and Others vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited and Another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 102
Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangarma More and Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387
State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. reported in 2000(3) PLJR(SC) 81
Ramnath sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors.
N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 3222
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra 1975 (2) SCC 840
Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC 156
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari 1969 (1) SCR 1006
Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1979 (4) SCC 365
Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan 1969 (2) SCC 770
State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe 1981 Supp SCC 72
O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh 1984 (4) SCC 66
Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India1991 (1) SCC 174
Binod Bihar Singh v. Union of India 1993 (1) SCC 572
State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. 1996 (3) SCC 132
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.