The court emphasized that delay condonation is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. It also highlighted the need for government bodies to perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned A.G.A. on the delay condonation application.

2. The limitation for filing the appeal was up to 25-04-2018 and on 08-01-2020 the Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 623 days with one defect. The defect was removed and appeal was presented on 09-01-2020. Therefore, there was delay of 623+1 = 624 days in presenting the appeal.

3. By drawing attention to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this application it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the delay is purely procedural in nature and is liable to be condoned.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that an application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment dated 25-11-2017 was filed on 18-12-2017 and a certified copy of the judgment was received on 16-02-2018. Thereafter, on 12-03-2018 a proposal was sent by the District Government Counsel to the District Magistrate for filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and after considering the material available before the District Magistrate, he sent the proposal for filing the Government Appeal on 17-03-2018. On 16-12-2018, the Government passed the G.O. for filing the appeal. It is further stated in the affidavit that since the limitation for filing of the appeal had also expired, a communication was sent to the District Magistrate on 03-01-2019 and reminders were sent on 21-06-2019 and 22.10.2019 for sending an officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer, so that an affidavit in support of the delay condonation application may be prepared and filed along with the appeal without any further delay and thereafter vide letter dated 18.11.2019 the District Magistrate has deputed an officer to contact the office of the Government Advocate for filing of the affidavit along with application for condonation of delay.

5. Before proceeding further it would be appropritae to take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on this aspect.

6. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summerised the law regarding condonation of delay in the following words: -

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.”

7. Again, in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: -

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

8. Same view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case of State of M.P. Vs. Chaitram Maywade (2020) 10 SCC 654 while condoning delay of 588 days and the Delay Condonation Application was rejected. In para 4 and 5 it was observed as under:-

“4. We have also ex-pressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only “certificate cases” to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The ob