The court ruled that governmental entities must demonstrate diligence in filing appeals, and bureaucratic delays do not suffice as grounds for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

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 231 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt.22.3.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 6891 of2017.

2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that through a letter dt. 4.4.2024 received from the office of the learned Advocate General, it was informed that the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22.3.2024; till then order of the learned Single Judge was not uploaded on the website of the High Court; on 9.4.2024, proposal was mooted for taking appropriate decision and after going through various departmental channels, on 30.4.2024 the Departmental Secretary sent the file to the office of the Advocate General for obtaining necessary opinion.

3. It is then stated that on 3.5.2024, the Advocate General opined that the L.P.A. in the present case be preferred and returned the file. Thereafter the file was sent to the departmental retainer for preparing statement of facts and also grounds of appeal and then it was placed before the Departmental Secretary for approval on 12.8.2024. After such approval was granted, memo of appeal was also drafted and the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024.

4. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 22.3.2024 with a delay of 231 days.

5. Application for certified copy of the judgment of learned Single Judge was made on 21.11.2024 and it was furnished on 29.11.2024, but it was filed much later.

6. Though the applicants were 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, no sense of urgency or diligence was shown to ensure that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation prescribed for the same. The file appears to have been moved from table to table through various departmental channels without any sense of urgency and after a period of 231 days, the appeal came to be filed.

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