Government entities must provide compelling reasons for delays in legal proceedings, as bureaucratic inefficiencies are insufficient for condonation.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. This appeal is barred by 214 days.

3. The only explanation as offered in the application for condonation of delay is as below:-

'(iii) That the impugned order was passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 7.8.2018. After passing the said order, certified copy of the order dated 7.8.2018 was applied on 3.1.2019 and the same was received on 3.1.2019. The delay in between of passing of the judgment and applying and receiving of the copy occurred on account of the Assembly elections and the winter brakes. The counsel representing the JDA on account of his personal difficulty was not able to collect the certified copy.

(iv) That in pursuance of the above said, the opinion along with the copy of Judgment was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Zone- 7 on 7.1.2019 and thereafter the same was forwarded to the legal cell of JDA. In the aforesaid exercise, on account of movement of file at different levels it took some time.

(v) that in pursuance of the opinion of Counsel the matter was placed before the Committee, which on 12.02.2019 proposed for filing of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench.

(vi) That in pursuance of the aforesaid under the Order dated 25.2.2019 Amit Kuri (Adv.) was engaged as a Counsel to file the Appeal and the JDA wanted to engage the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad as a Senior Counsel in the matter, who was there in the Writ Petition as well, thus, the talks were going with him.

(vii) That finally the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad on 1.5.2019 denied to represent the JDA for his personal reasons.

(viii) That thereafter, after examination of the record made available to the counsel, the counsel, got prepared the appeal on 3.5.2019 and forwarded the same to the OIC, for purpose of vetting and approval. The OIC after examining the appeal found there to be some errors in dates and thus handed over the Draft to the counsel on 5.5.2019.

(ix) That after making the necessary corrections and on account of there being holidays in the Hon'ble Court the Counsel handed over the Appeal again to the OIC of the case on 8.5.2019, which after being getting approved and verified and approved at different levels was handed over to the Counsel.'

4. The cause shown for delay, is far from being satisfactory and only reflects indolence on the part of the JDA in prosecuting the matter and seeking to avail remedy of appeal under the law, if aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge.

5. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated this practice on the part of the State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the Office from one table to the other.

6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below-

'3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

'12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the presc