SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(J&K) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohammad Magrey and Sanjay Dhar, JJ.
UT of J&K and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ghulam Mohi ud Din Ahangar and Ors. – Respondents
CM No.233/2020 in LPA No.05/2020, CM No.234/2020
Decided On : 17-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.A. Dar, Sr. AAG
For the Respondent(s):Mr. M.I. Qadiri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mir Naveed Gul, Advocate

Headnote:

Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5-Limitation-Condonation of delay- Parties seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal are Government functionaries-Law of limitation binds everybody including Government but certain amount of leniency and leeway has been given by Courts in the matter of condoning of delay when party seeking condonation happens to be a Government Department-This is so, because of peculiar functioning of Government departments where files move from one table to another and decision making by very nature of functioning of bureaucracy takes a long time. (Para 8)

Result-Application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Appellants/petitioners, Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, have challenged the judgment and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Writ Court in a writ petition filed by the respondents herein bearing OWP No.152/2012. There is a delay of 590 days in filing the appeal and, as such, the appellants/petitioners have moved the instant application seeking condonation of delay.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, appellants/petitioners have submitted that after receiving the copy of the impugned judgment, the matter was placed before the High-Level Committee. It came up for consideration before the Committee on 03.05.2018, 14.05.2018 and 07.07.2018 and a decision was taken on 07.07.2018 that the impugned judgment is required to be challenged. Thereafter the record was collected from the subordinate offices and Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs was approached for legal advice. Sanction to file the against the impugned judgment was accorded by the Law Department on 20.09.2018 and the sanction order was forwarded by the said Department in terms of its letter dated 17.05.2019. It is further averred in the application that on 02.07.2019, a request was made to the Collector Land Acquisition to depute his official along with relevant record to the office of the counsel for drafting and filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was prepared by the counsel and it came to be filed on 1st January, 2020. According to appellants/petitioners, there is sufficient explanation for delayed filing of the appeal and the delay deserves to be condoned.

3. The respondents have resisted the application by filing a reply thereto. In their reply respondents have submitted that immediately after passing of the impugned judgment, they had delivered a copy of the same to the offices of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, and the Collector as also in the office of Chief Engineer, PWD. It is averred that there has been gross negligence on the part of appellants in dealing with the instant case, inasmuch as the officials of the appellants moved the files from one table to another without actually doing anything substantial. It is further averred that inaction of the appellants compelled the respondents to approach Chief Minister’s secretariat and thereafter grievance cell of the Governor when the State was placed under Governor’s rule. Instructions were issued to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, to look into the matter way back in July, 2018 but even after deciding to challenge the impugned judgment of the Writ Court, the appellants did not take any steps in this regard with reasonable dispatch. Respondents have given details with regard to the steps which they took for seeking implementation of the impugned judgment and have placed on record copies of representations and communications to substantiate their contentions. In short, respondents have vehemently contended in their reply that there has been deliberate, intentional and unexplained delay in filing the appeal which cannot be condoned in any circumstances.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. While advancing arguments, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has contended that the matter regarding implementation of the impugned judgment and filing of appeal against the said judgment has remained under active consideration of appellant/petitioners throughout this period and at no stage there has been any intentional delay on the part of the officials of the appellant/petitioners. It is contended that on account of peculiar characteristics of functioning of the Government offices, a lenient view is required to be taken while considering the present application, particularly keeping in view merits of the case. Learned Senior AAG has contended that the respondents despite having received compensation in terms of the final award passed by the Collector

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top