The court emphasized that government entities must demonstrate diligence in adhering to the statutory limit for appeal filing and cannot claim special treatment in delay situations without sufficient reasoning.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

I.A. No. 10362 of 2024 in/and L.P.A. No. 606 of 2024

This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone delay of 260 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 04.12.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5022 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the respondent had submitted his appeal through Governor Secretariat enclosing copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Thereafter, the file was placed before competent authority, who directed to proceed with Letters Patent Appeal.

4. According to the application, the grounds of appeal were drafted by the department and the file was placed before competent authority for approval on 22.07.2024. Thereafter, Advocate General’s opinion was secured on 25.07.2024, approval on appeal was granted on 02.08.2024 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2024.

5. We have noticed that the appeal has been preferred enclosing a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 04.12.2023 but the application for certified copy of the same had been filed on 30.08.2024 and it was made ready on 12.09.2024. No explanation is offered for this delay in applying for certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. The plea of the applicant that they are Government functionaries having several layers of decision making, which consumed much time, cannot be accepted. When the judgment was pronounced on 4.12.2023, and the time for filing of the LPA is 30 days, the applicants cannot act leisurely, wait till 19.9.2024 and then file the LPA.

7. In 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- 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 limit