The court emphasized the limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into fact-finding and found no grounds for interference with the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.

I.A.No.11903 of 2019

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 102 days taking the ground of department to take a decision to prefer appeal, for which, an opinion has been taken in the matter, some conferences took place with the concerned law officer and instructions were given to procure all the related documents and pleadings so as to prepare a proper memo of appeal. Thereafter, the said procedure took time after settlement of decision by the discussion with the law officer, the file has been handed over to the filing counsel for the purpose of preparing the final draft memo.

Thereafter, the appeal has been filed which caused the delay of 102 days.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that the instant interlocutory application may be allowed since the appellant has got good case on merit and on technicality, the instant appeal would be dismissed, the same will prejudice the appellant.

On the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has opposed the delay condonation application by putting reliance upon the certain judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524, Post Master General and Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Nripen Sarma, (2013) 4 SCC 57, Vijay Shankar Pandey Vrs. Union of India and Anr., (2014) 10 SCC 589.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, first deem it fit and proper to deal with the judgments, upon which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner.

So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory(supra) which pertains to filing of appeal against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 27A(1)(c) and in that pretext, it has been laid down that in filing the appeal, the limitation period provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is required to be followed but the fact of this case pertains to intra-court appeal to be governed, wherein, the period of limitation is to be considered under the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such, on fact, the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case is distinct from the fact of the present case.

So far as the judgment rendered in the case of Post Master General and Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.(supra), we, on consideration of the factual aspect involved therein has found therefrom that therein the delay in filing the appeal was of 427 days.

It is evident from the factual aspect that the Hon’ble Apex Court on the basis of contradiction in the fact has not found to condone the delay of 427 days but the said fact is not available in the facts of the present case as would appear from the ground taken for condonation of delay in the interlocutory application, hence, this judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case.

So far as the case of Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Nripen Sarma(supra), there was delay of 239 days in filing the appeal. Herein, the delay of 102 days.

It further requires to refer herein the other proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vrs. Chandra Mani and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 132, wherein, it has been laid down to the effect that while condoning the delay of 109 days in filing the LPA before the High Court, this Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within the reasonable limits is permissible having regard impersonal bureaucratic set up involving red tapism.

In State of U.P. and Ors. Vrs. Harish Chandra and Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309, by giving similar reasons, as mentioned in Chandra Mani’