The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be justified with valid explanations, particularly for governmental entities, and that mere bureaucratic inefficiencies do not warrant leniency.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

CMP[M] No.1698 of 2024 & LPA No.112 of 2025

The present Letters Patent Appeal is barred by 371 days as per averments made in the application, whereas, as per office report, delay is of 399 days.The application, as such, has been opposed by filing reply.

2. We have perused the application and the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2023, whereby the petitioner was given the relief to pay the fee in terms of Annexure P-3, i.e. an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, as tuition fee, for the academic session 2017-18, but for the subsequent session i.e. 2018-19 onwards, they would be liable to pay the same fee as has been charged by the respondent/State from the candidates, who were admitted against NIR Quota Seats, i.e. fee structure at par with State Government Medical College-State Quota seats. Necessary action was made by Department on 27.05.2023, when the Department wrote allegedly to appellant No.4, vide communication dated 01.06.2023, as has been mentioned in the application. The reference of appellant No.4 has been made repeatedly in the application but memo of parties does not mention appellant No.4 as such. It is mentioned that the Government had raised some queries on 24.07.2023 and same was apprised on 02.09.2023. The fresh query was answered on 18.09.2023 and eventually it was decided on 22.02.2024 to file the LPA.

3. It transpires that even the certified copy of judgment had not been received and apparently the same was then applied only on 03.04.2024 and delivered on 22.04.2024, which led to the filing of the appeal on 29.06.2024.

4. We are of the considered opinion that there is no explanation, as such, between September 2023 to February 2024, as to what steps were taken. It is apparent that inaction and negligence on the part of appellants cannot be accepted, though a feeble attempt has been made by learned counsel for State that contrary to the decision impugned in a similar circumstance’s, the Coordinate Bench had dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. We have also perused the stand taken by the State. Even if the Coordinate Bench had dismissed the Writ Petition of similarly situated students earlier on 31.03.2021, however, apparently the said fact was never brought to the notice of learned Single Judge, when the matter was decided.

6. In support of her contention, learned State Counsel has relied upon the following law laid down by Apex Court and prayed that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

6(i). In G. Ramegowda Major and others Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore alongwith connected matter, (1988) 2 SCC 142, wherein it has been held as under:-

“17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of Section 5 it might, perhaps, be some what unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government. It relied upon and trusted its law- officers. Lindley, M.R., in In Re: