Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

I.A. No. 3538 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 174 of 2023

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT ,1963 to condone the delay of 336 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 05.04.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1194 of 2009.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is stated that the said order was communicated to the applicant-Department on 29.04.2022; that the respondents made representation on 09.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 enclosing copy of the impugned order which were received on 10.05.2022 and 19.05.2022; matter was then placed before the Under Secretary of the Department on 11.05.2022 and a detailed note was also put up on26.08.2022.

3. This note appears to have been put up almost four months after the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was communicated to the applicant-department and the reason for the delay in putting up the note of four months is not explained.

4. It is next stated in the application filed for condonation of delay that the Under Secretary to the Department, two months later on 26.10.2022 raised a query which was answered by the Section Officer on 16.11.2022 and the file was sent for approval to Legal Section on 18.11.2022 and then again sent to the Advocate General on 22.11.2022, who approved the filing of the appeal on 06.12.2022. It is stated that the statement of facts were then prepared on 17.02.2023 and approved on 21.02.2023 and the file was then transferred to the present counsel on 02.03.2023 and the appeal came to be filed on 06.04.2023.

5. Thus almost 4½ months elapsed between the sending of the file for approval of the Legal Section till the filing of the appeal.

6. The applicants were certainly aware that the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be filed within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Single Judge, but at every stage, as explained above, there was a delay in taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal.

7. Also decision to file the appeal seems to have been taken after several people in the department studied the file.

8. Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another , (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Supreme Court held:

“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 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day.There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8- 1-2010 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-incharge 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