Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Subodh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
CM APPL. 3432/2020
1. The respondent is stated to be seventy-three years old. He had filed the first petition, WP (C) 6663/2010, which was disposed of on 19.09.2011. The respondent had filed the second petition, W.P.(C) 5855/2013, as according him the appellant had denied the complete benefit of the order dated 19.09.2011. This petition was disposed of by the order dated 22.01.2019, which the appellant seeks to impugn in the above captioned appeal.
2. The appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 279 days in filing the present appeal.
3. The appellant had filed a application (being CM No.53023/2019) seeking similar relief but the same was bereft of any particulars. The said application was listed on 10.12.2019 and this Court had passed the following order:
"1. The present appeal has been filed by the DDA assailing the judgment dated 22.1.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent claiming entitlement to allotment of a flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, on pre-existing priority number.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of dela
Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure diligent and committed performance of their duties, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for governmen....
The court emphasized the term 'sufficient cause' as a necessary condition for the extension of the prescribed period under the Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of providing adequate reason....
Government bodies must demonstrate diligence and provide satisfactory explanations for delays in court proceedings; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient for condonation.
Government entities must provide compelling reasons for delays in legal proceedings, as bureaucratic inefficiencies are insufficient for condonation.
Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure diligence and commitment in filing appeals, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government depart....
Letter and Sprit - In the present case the appellant is a government department and all its officials are government employees who need to follow the law of the land in letter and spirit.
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
