The court ruled that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal were fabricated and insufficient, emphasizing the importance of genuine explanations for procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 11.12.2019, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 1249 days. An additional affidavit dated 04.08.2023 has also been filed seeking condonation of delay. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit read as under;

“3. The above Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2019. The Appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the judgment of the single judge. Concededly certified copy of the judgment was applied for on 17.12.2019 and received by the Office of the Advocate General on 19.12.2019 and it was communicated to the Government on 31.12.2019. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit that "the Government sought the legal opinion of the Advocate General on 11.12.2019." It is un- understandable how the Government could seek legal opinion in a matter, the disposal of which had been communicated from the Advocate General's office to the government only on 31.12.2019. It is thus evident that the averments stated in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit are incorrect and only cooked up reasons.

4. The averiments in paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit are evidently reasons invented/cooked up for the purpose of explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The averments should be honest and just. The statement in paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit that a letter dated 03.02.2022 was received from the Local Self Government Department enquiring about the status of filing the appeal in the matter and thereupon the office of the Advocate General found out the misplaced files in their office and the Appeal was filed on 15.06.2023 is totally incorrect and so depicted only to mislead this Hon'ble Court on facts. The misplacement of file in the office of the Advocate General is evidently a concocted reason and the same is apparent from the fact that such a plea was not stated in the original affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. There is no mention even in the additional affidavit when the office of the Advocate General rendered the legal opinion to the Government in response to the letter dated 11.12.2019. There is also no mention when exactly the office of the Advocate General could find out the alleged missing files in their office to enable them to file the appeal on 15.06.2023. The deponent to the affidavit is not at all competent to speak about the alleged missing of files in the office of the Advocate General. The explanation offered in paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit is really vague and insufficient to justify condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

5. The averments in paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit is contrary and inconsistent to what is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. In order to demonstrate the inconsistency in the matter, I am producing herewith the affidavit and petition (CM Appl. No.1/2022 in RP No.815/2022) for reference and is marked as Annexure R1(a). The said RP was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 22.08.2022, whereas this Appeal is seen filed on 15.06.2023. It is therefore clear that the averments in paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit are also incorrect and misleading.

2. Challenge was laid to the order dated 03.05.2017 of the Local Self Government, rejecting the request for construction of the building on the ground that as per the Town Planning Scheme, the area falls within the Agricultural Zone.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report dated 04.01.2018 along with the site plan. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of