The court ruled that governmental entities must adhere to the same limitation periods as private litigants and cannot mechanically condone delays without sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1) The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 211 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment dt. 6.2.2023 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 3665 of 2019.

2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was forwarded to Deputy Director of the applicants’ department through a noting dt. 14.3.2023 and it was placed before the Additional Chief Secretary on 21.3.2023, who then asked for discussion on the matter with the service record. It is stated that thereafter proposal to seek the service record from the Civil Surgeon was moved and it was approved on 28.4.2023. The Civil Surgeon, Palamu then sent the record through his letter dt. 3.5.2023. Thereafter the file was again placed before the Additional Secretary on 15.5.2023 and a decision was then taken to send the file to the Advocate General for his opinion on 22.5.2023.

3) It is stated that the Advocate General recommended for filing of appeal on 13.6.2023 and then the file was sent for preparing grounds of appeal which was prepared on 1.7.2023. The file was then put up for approval of the Additional Chief Secretary on 19.7.2023 who asked for further discussion on the same day.

4) It is stated that there was further revision of the grounds of appeal on13.9.2023, draft of the appeal was finally approved on 4.10.2023 and the appeal was filed on 10.10.2023.

5) It is stated that the delay occurred on account of procedural technicalities and was not deliberate and also because there are several layers of decision making in the government which consumed much time.

6) From the record, it is clear that the judgment of learned Single Judge was pronounced on 6.2.2023 in WP(S) No. 3665 of 2019 in the presence of the counsel for the applicants. But application for issuance of the certified copy of the said judgment was made five months later on 7.7.2023 and it was obtained on 18.7.2023 and the appeal itself came to be filed, admittedly on 10.10.2023.

7) The applicants were undoubtedly aware that the limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was obtained, but it appears that the file was moved from table to table mechanically, and even after the Advocate General recommended for filing of appeal on 13.6.2023, almost four months later, the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

8) Merely because the applicants are a Government department, they cannot claim that the delay is to be condoned mechanically because there is no separate period of limitation prescribed for the Government departments.

9) 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 nearl