Delay in filing a petition cannot be condoned without plausible justification, regardless of the party's status, emphasizing adherence to the law of limitation.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 4228 of 2019, titled as, Rajinder Singh & others vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, which is barred by one year, seven months and fourteen days.

2. The lack of sufficient cause made in the application compels us to dismiss the application itself, as apparently, the copy of order was applied on 19.10.2024 and the delay hasoccurred therein and then only shows the conduct of the applicant as such for the delay in contesting the litigation.

3. It has also been mentioned in the application that the copy of the judgment was downloaded from the website of this Court but in spite of that, no efforts as such have been made to apply for the certified copy, though averment is made that on 26.10.2023, the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of H.P. has advised that same is required to be challenged, which is also after a period of seven months. The limitation being 30 days, as such the delay being inordinate is squarely covered by the principles of law laid down in Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr. , reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 . The same reads as under:

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and ci