The court underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adhering to limitation periods.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. I.A. No. 7280 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 870 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2835 of 2014.

2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the delay was caused due to procedural formalities. According to the applicants, they had received information about the judgement of the learned Single Judge and put up the same before the Managing Director of the first applicant. It was then examined by the Managing Director and he decided to seek legal opinion in the matter. The file was then sent to the office of the Advocate General seeking opinion and the Advocate General rendered opinion on 16.05.2024. Thereafter further steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 02.07.2024.

3. It appears that between the date of judgment on 12.04.2022 and the date when the file was sent to the office of the Advocate General, there is a gap of more than 2 years and no steps were taken to secure the opinion of the Advocate General in order to ensure that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation of 30 days. There appears to be gross negligence on the part of the applicants in taking steps expeditiously for filing the L.P.A.

4. In Postmaster General and others v. 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 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 they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that