Delay in filing an appeal may not be condoned without a sufficient cause shown, emphasizing the importance of diligence and adherence to limitation periods in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

I.A. No.10928 of 2023 in/and L.P.A. No. 676 of 2023

This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone the delay of 318 days in filing this Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 15.12.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7486 of 2013.

2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the said order was communicated on 24.02.2023 by the Registry of the Court and file was put up before the Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department on 24.02.2023. It is stated that thereafter a decision was taken to prefer appeal and the file was forwarded to the Advocate General, who handed it over to conducting lawyer to prepare memo of appeal and the appeal was ultimately filed on 30.11.2023.

3. It is stated that delay was due to procedural technicalities and was not deliberate.

4. Though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 15.12.2022, it appears that the application for certified copy of the same was filed on 03.11.2023, that it was issued on 24.11.2023 and the appeal was then filed on 30.11.2023.

5. No explanation is forthcoming from the applicants for the reason for delay in making application for issuance of certified copy.

6. Even otherwise, if they had received the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 24.02.2023, they ought not to have waited till November, 2023 and then filed the appeal. They had shown a very lethargic attitude in taking steps to file the LPA which has to be filed in 30 days.

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 on8- 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 limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that th