Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 397
High Court Of Delhi
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
R.P.BUILDERS - Respondent
C.M. 2198 of 1993
Decided On : 05/27/1994
C.R.SOMA SEKHARAN, S.K.CHANDWANI
The Court should take into account the peculiar characteristics of the functioning of the Government, such as procedural red-tape and bureaucratic delays, while dealing with applications for condonation of delay filed by State Public Sector.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - CONDONATION OF DELAY - STATE PUBLIC SECTOR - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - GUIDELINES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a State Public Sector, filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a judgment of the Single Judge. The delay was attributed to red-tapism, delays in correspondence, and the need to obtain legal opinions from various authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by the appellant and that the factors commonly associated with the functioning of State Public Sector, such as red-tapism and bureaucratic procedures, should be taken into account while considering applications for condonation of delay.
Issues: Whether the Court should condone the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, a State Public Sector.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on several recent judgments of the Supreme Court, including Union of India vs. N. Das R. Israni, which held that the words sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had emphasized the need to take into consideration the peculiar characteristics of the functioning of the Government, such as procedural red-tape and bureaucratic delays, while dealing with applications for condonation of delay filed by State Public Sector.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 with the Delhi Legal Aid Board.
( 1 ) THIS C. M. raises a question which, of late, has been arising day in and day out, in this Court. The matter is in regard to the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the State Public Sector Pubiic Corporations and whether certain factors common to these bodies in their structure and administrative procedures have to be taken into accounts by the Courts while considering applications for condonation of delay. The matter has required review particularly in the light of the recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N. Das R. Israni (Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 1993) arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 417 of 1993 dated 12-4-93) (2) reversing the decision of this Court in Narain Das R. Israni vs. Union of India (1992 (1) Arb. L. R. 405 ). (1) In that decision this Court had taken the view that "if the Courts were to accept the mere procedure of working in Government offices as sufficient cause, then delay will have to be condoned almost in every case. There can be no discrimination between a common man and the Union of India for furnishing sufficient cause for condonation of delay. " The same view was held by this Court in Kanishka Builders vs. Union of India (1990 [2] Arb. L. R. 197 ). (3) Learned cousel for respondent, in fact relied upon several rulings of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in particular. Govrnment of Andhra Pradesh vs. Batchala Balaiah (AIR 1985 AP 52): (4) Spl. Deputy Collector vs. Nawab T. Yar June (AIR 1973 AP 43), (5) R. D. O. vs. T. Laxminarayana (AIR 1975 AP 109) (6) S. M. Hadi Jaffrey vs. Spl. Deputy Collector (1975) [2] Andhra W. R. 7) (7 ). But now. we are. considering the matter afresh in the light of various recent rulings of the Supreme Court and in particular, in the light of the Supreme Court in Narain Das R. Israni s case wherein the Judgment of this Court "was reversed.
( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the last mentioned case. we shall refer to some of the other recent rulings of the Supreme Court taking a similar view in favour of the State Public Sector. These cases fall in two cases. One category is where there is collusion between the officers of the Stateipublic Sector (including the Standing Counsel or Government Pleaders) on the one hand and the litigants who are fighting the case on the opposite side: or where these officers play fraud on the Stateipublic Sector. G. Ramesowda vs. Spl. L. A. O. Bangalore (AIR 1988 S. C. 897) (S) falls into this category. The other cases decided by the Supreme Court in favour of condonation of delay accept that the deay occurriag on account of govermental departmental procedures is sufficient cause. To this category belong State of U. P. vs. Bahadur Singh (AIR 1983 S. C. 845) (9) and Collector. Land Accuition. Anantnag vs. Katiji (AIR 1987 S. C. 1353) (10 ). In these cases. apart from holding that departmental delays and bureaucratic proce dures could be taken into account, it is also stated that the Court should keep public interest also in mind. public interest is also treated as a relevant ground in Union of India vs. Cyanamid (AIR 1987 S. C. 1802) (11 ). Then conies Union of India vs. Narain Das R. Israni (S. C.) decided on 12-4-1993. These are cases not involving fraud or collusion but even so departmental delays are treated as relevant factors to be taken into consideration. In other words, these factors are not irrelevant . In the State of U. P. vs. Bahadur Singh, the Supreme Court held that in matters such as a Land Ceiling law "there are no two parties as is the. case in a litigation between two parties wherein each would be prosecuting and watching the proceedings regularly. Further the departmental authority has to be apprised of adverse decision and further decision has to be taken whether the case is one required to be taken to higher court. Not that the departmental authorities charged with a duty to implement the law should not be vigilant; but one aspect cannot be ove
