Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 1067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RAKESH TIWARI, MIR DARA SHEKO, JJ.
State of West Bengal - Appellants
Versus
Goutam Kr. Dutta - Respondent
M.A.T. No. 1336 of 2016, C.A.N. No. 7406 of 2016 and C.A.N. No. 7427 of 2016
Decided On : 23-11-2016
For the Appellant : Tapan Kr. Mukherjee and Somnath Naskar
For the Respondents: Narayan Ch. Mandal
Government departments have an obligation to ensure that their officers perform their duties with diligence and commitment to prefer appeals/cases before the Court within the time of limitation prescribed by the legislature.
Headnote:
CONDONATION OF DELAY - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - Delay in filing appeal - Public interest - Government department - Diligence and commitment - Court's discretion.
Fact of the Case:
The State of West Bengal filed an appeal against a judgment and order dated 29th March, 2016 passed in a writ petition. The appeal was accompanied by a delay condonation application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the memorandum of appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State had not provided any acceptable explanation for the delay, nor had it shown any bona fides or consistent effort made by its officials to file the appeal within the time prescribed under law. The Court also noted that the State had a trend of preferring appeals after considerable lapse of time.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State had not shown any reasonable or acceptable cause for the delay and that the efforts of Government advocates and its officials were not sincere in bringing the case before the Court within the limitation period. The Court also held that the Government departments have an obligation to ensure that their officers perform their duties with diligence and commitment to prefer appeals/cases before the Court within the time of limitation prescribed by the legislature.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the delay condonation application, the appeal, and the application for stay.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This appeal is preferred challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2016 passed in writ petition No. W.P.14969(W) of 2015 (Sri Goutam Kumar Dutta & anr. v. The State of West Bengal and ors.).
2. The appeal is accompanied by delay condonation application under section 5 of the Limitation Act being C.A.N. 7406 of 2016 praying for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the memorandum of appeal against the judgment and order aforesaid and also accompanied by application for stay being C.A.N. 7427 of 2016.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and for the respondent on the application for condonation of delay.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment impugned was passed on 29th March, 2016 and was communicated on 11th May, 2016 and was received by the Director of Library Services, Government of West Bengal on the same day. The file was then processed and a proposal was made to the Law Officer, Department of M.E.E. and L.S., Government of West Bengal dated 18th May, 2016 for preferring an appeal against the said order. The Law Officer of the said department submitted the file for approving the proposal before the Secretary of the Department of M.E.E. and L.S., Government of West Bengal on 1st June, 2016. The Secretary in turn, accorded his approval on 26th May, 2016 to the proposal of preferring an appeal against the order. Subsequently, the file was sent to the office of the Legal Remembrance to engage a Counsel for filing of the appeal.
5. In paragraph 5 of the delay condonation application it is submitted that approval proposal was received back by the Principal Secretary, Department of M.E.E. & L.S., Government of West Bengal on 15th June, 2016 and the Director of Library Services was communicated the file for necessary action on 16th June, 2016. The Director of Library Services communicated the matter to the District Library Officer, North 24-Parganas on the same date for necessary action.
6. It appears from the averment made in the delay condonation application that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the District Library Officer on 20th June, 2016 and which was received by the Counsel on 22nd June, 2016 from the office of the High Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant/State would argue on the aforesaid facts that delay caused was not under the control of the applicant/appellant, as such, the cause shown in the delay condonation application, as enumerated above, may be considered as sufficient for the purpose of explanation of the delay in filing of the instant appeal. He would also submit that there was no intentional delay and/or laches on the part of the authority to file the same and that there is fair chance of the success of the appeal hence unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the applicant/appellant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury. Apart from the separate application for condonation of delay a prayer for stay has also been made in the delay condonation application in paragraph 9 to the effect that a contempt rule has been issued in the meantime and as such the contempt proceeding be stayed until the appeal is heard by this Court.
8. Counsel for the appellant submits that normally the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay in case where public interest is involved, as observed by the Apex Court in paragraphs 10 to 13 in the case of Imrat Lal and ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & anr., reported in (2014)14 S.C.C. 133. In that case the Court considered an application for condonation of delay of 1110 days under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filing the appeal in a land acquisition matter for enhancement of compensation. Paragraphs 10 to 13 reads-
"10. While we agree with Shri Narendra Hooda that the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely vague and did not p
