IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that insufficient explanation for delay, particularly due to government inefficiency, does not warrant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT:

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)

Delay Condonation Application IA No.01/2024

This is delay condonation application filed by the State/appellant to condone the delay in filing the present government appeal.

2. As per the report of Registry, there is a delay of 266 days in filing the present appeal. In the delay condonation application, the ground stated for delay is that subsequent to judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 the Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), District Nainital got applied the certified copy of the judgment and order on 25.09.2023 which was received on 25.09.2023 and after going through the judgment the learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal), District Nainital made a proposal on 27.10.2023 which was sent to the District Magistrate, District Nainital for taking necessary steps; that, the District Magistrate, Nainital thereafter sent a detailed proposal to the Principal Secretary (Law) for sanction, vide letter dated 10.11.2023; that, vide letter dated 29.11.2023 sanction was accorded to file the Government Appeal; that, the District Magistrate, vide its letter dated 04.01.2024 directed the S.S.P., Nainital to do the needful in the matter; that, thereafter the S.S.P. Nainital vide its letter dated 15.01.2024 directed the deponent for filing the government appeal; that, thereafter file was collected from the office of L.R. and after collecting documents, official pairokar contacted the office of Government Advocate on 29.07.2024 and thereafter the file was allotted to the State Law Officer on the same day i.e. 29.07.2024 to prepare the government appeal; that, thereafter on 01.08.2024 the Government counsel prepared the appeal and the deponent was called to swear the affidavit and ultimately the appeal was filed on 13.09.2024.

3. Learned State Counsel would fairly admit that though no sufficient ground is stated in the delay condonation application to condone the delay but it is settled law that the court should adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay and should not go into technicalities. He would submit that the appeal should be decided on merits in the interest of justice.

4. In view of the submissions made above, this Court perused the record.

5. In the opinion of the Court, the delay is not sufficiently explained. There is no explanation, whatsoever, for the period between 15.01.2024 to 29.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 to 12.09.2024. The conduct and behavior of the State in preferring the present appeal appears to be very negligent and lethargic. Thus, we have no hesitation to state that in the present case delay has occurred merely because of government inefficiency. We are fortified in our view by the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the extensive case law on the point of condonation of delay, has culled out the principles which need to be followed while condoning the delay. The said principles evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:

"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of