Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be established; administrative inefficiencies are not valid grounds for extending time limits.

ORDER :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J.

Heard on condonation of delay of 479 days in filing the appeal.

2. The reasons stated for the delay, as stated in paragraph 10, reads as under:

“10. It is submitted that the above Writ Petition was disposed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 26.02.2024. It is submitted that application was made for obtaining certified copy of the Order on 05.03.2024 and the copy was made ready on 08.08.2024 and was obtained on 09.08.2024. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the Order, immediate steps were taken as to the next course of action regarding the Order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge so also to explore the possibilities to comply with the said Order. Upon deliberations at various levels and upon calling-for and scrutinising of several documents and Government records pertaining to various periods, it was ultimately decided that the Order could not be complied for the reason that the land in question as in date is classified as Government Poramboke- Vacant Natham and the Writ Petitioner’s claim of title is merely based on a sale deed executed by his vendor, who himself has no titular rights over the land, the sanction of compensation for the said land is legally not possible. Hence, it was decided to file a Writ Appeal and in the meanwhile opinion of the Government Pleader was also sought and obtained wherein it was opined that it is a fit case to file Writ Appeal.”

3. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.

(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"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 in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial jus