The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties must demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal, and lack of diligence and commitment in prosecuting rights cannot be used as a basis for seeking condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

D. N. Patel, CJ. - CAV.No.44/2021

Since respondent has entered appearance, caveat stands discharged. C.M.No.36995-96/2021 (exemptions)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

LPA 386/2021 & CM.Nos.36997/2021 (delay), 36998/2021 (stay), 36999/2021 (addl. docs)

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants (Original Respondents) against the order dated 25.02.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1743/2019 (Annexure A-1 to the memo of this appeal). There is a delay of 921 days in preferring the appeal and, thus, C.M. No. 36997/2021 has been preferred seeking condonation of delay.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the delay of 921 days in preferring the appeal is mainly for the reason that in a similar matter related to Annual IEIS Scheme, the issue was already under litigation with regard to correct interpretation of Notification dated 25.09.2013 whereby amendments were made in the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 12.04.2018 in W.P.(C) 5082/2017 in the case of M/s. Welldone Exim and Respondents had thereafter filed SLP(C) No.012878/2019 in October, 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is still subjudice in the Honble Supreme Court and a few other matters involving similar issues have been tagged with the said SLP. It is also submitted that in the Government, the files have to pass through several departments/officers dealing with the matter which is time consuming and the Directorate has also to take inputs from the concerned Regional Office of the DGFT and seek legal advice from the Department of Legal Affairs. The delay is unintentional and for reasons beyond the control of the Appellants. Learned counsel for the Appellants also submits that the delay is also caused on account of the Pandemic Covid-19 as initially there was a lockdown and thereafter, the functioning in the Government offices was restricted.

3. As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the maximum limit for benefit of Duty Credit Scrip under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (for short IEIS Scheme) is Rs.1 crore, as per Notification No.43 dated 25.09.2013 and, therefore, claim of the Respondent (original petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1743/2019) was rejected initially by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad vide order dated 30.01.2018 and thereafter, by Director General of Foreign Trade vide order dated 16.11.2018. Learned counsel submits that the Notification No.43 dated 25.09.2013 is explicitly clear and unambiguous and permits no flexibility in the grant of benefit beyond the maximum limit prescribed and the relevant clause of the Notification has been ignored by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents vehemently opposes the application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that even if it is assumed in favour of the Appellants, for the sake of argument, that there was a lockdown on account of Covid-19, followed by restricted functioning in the Government offices for some time, there is no explanation in the application for condonation of delay, by the Appellants for the period between the date of pronouncement of judgment by learned Single Judge i.e. 15.02.2019 to the date of declaration of Nationwide lockdown i.e. 25.03.2020. Thus, there is a clear delay of approximately 365 days even prior to the declaration of lockdown on 25.03.2020. The application is completely silent except for stating that the files have to move from one Department to the other in the Government and that the Appellants were awaiting the outcome of the litigation pending in Honble Supreme Court. Appellants have failed to make out a sufficient cause and it is a settled law that in the absence of a sufficient cause, the delay should not be condoned by the Courts.

5. A