Delay cannot be condoned without a plausible and acceptable explanation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Original Application No. 330/1069 of 2021 (Ravinder Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India and Others).

3. The Stamp Reporter has reported latches of 638 days on the date of reporting of the present petition on 15.12.2023. Subsequently, present petition was filed on 18.12.2023.

4. On a pointed query learned counsel for the petitioners submits that latches have been explained in paragraph 15 of the petition, therefore, delay in challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 is not intentional and is liable to be quashed. Paragraph 15 of the petition is quoted as under:

“15. That due to long departmental procedure the matter has been sent to ICAR head Quarter and after concurrence of Head Quarter it has been decided to challenge the matter on the ground of delay and latches and all these proceedings have taken enough time and there is some delay in challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 which is not intentional and the same is bona-fide and therefore the Hon’ble High Court may condone the delay and writ petition may be heard on merits condoning the delay otherwise the petitioners department shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

5. We are not satisfied with the explanation so offered by the petitioner.

6. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bherulal, 2020 (10) SCC 654, the Special Leave Petition was filed with a delay of 663 days. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the application seeking condonation of delay, observed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 as under:

“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 and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

“27. It is not in dispute that the persons 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 bona-fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

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 dela