Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, JJ.
Srilekha Das Purkayastha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Director General, Assam Rifles & Ors. - Respondents
MC (WA) No. 67/2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Summary: The court considered an application for condonation of delay filed in connection with an appeal proposed from an order that was assailed in a previous appeal. The court held that since the previous appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and did not attain complete finality, the applicants had the right to pursue their writ petitions and challenge any order passed on the same or similar issues.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed an application for condonation of delay in connection with an appeal proposed from an order that was assailed in a previous appeal. The previous appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as the notice challenged by the writ petitioner therein was withdrawn, and the relevant writ petitioner’s cause of action did not survive.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the implications of the order impugned in the previous appeal and held that it did not attain complete finality. The court dismissed the present application for condonation of delay, granting the applicants the liberty to challenge any order that may be passed on the writ petitions filed by them covering the same or similar issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were entitled to condonation of delay in filing an appeal proposed from an order that was assailed in a previous appeal that was permitted to be withdrawn.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the previous appeal did not attain complete finality, the applicants had the right to pursue their writ petitions and challenge any order passed on the same or similar issues.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the present application for condonation of delay with liberty to the applicants to challenge any order that may be passed on the writ petitions filed by them covering the same or similar issues. WA No.19 of 2021 and MC (WA) No.69 of 2021 were dismissed at the receiving stage.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by would-be appellants who had been granted leave to intervene in an appeal that has since been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. It will be evident from the order dated September 26, 2018 by which leave was granted to the present applicants to intervene in the appeal that writ petitions had been filed on behalf of the applicants and the principle issue decided by the order under appeal in WA No.78 of 2016 would govern the writ petitions filed by these applicants.
3. As far as WA No.78 of 2016 is concerned, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated October 22, 2021 since the notice challenged by the writ petitioner therein was withdrawn and, as such, the relevant writ petitioner’s cause of action did not survive.
4. However, at the time that WA No.78 of 2016 was permitted to be withdrawn leave was granted to the applicants in MC (WA) No.9 of 2018 to file a fresh writ appeal. The present application for condonation of delay has been filed in connection with an appeal proposed from the same order that was assailed in WA No.78 of 2016.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that since the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 would govern the decision-making process at the writ court stage, the independent petitions filed by the present applicants may suffer the same fate.
6. It may be observed that the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 was carried in an appeal. However, the appeal was not decided on merits but was permitted to be withdrawn. In such a scenario, the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 cannot be said to have been attained complete finality. In such circumstances, it will be open to the applicants to pursue their writ petitions in accordance with law and even if the learned Single Bench finds embarrassment in passing any order different from the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016, the applicants will have the right to prefer appeals from the individual writ petitions.
7. Accordingly, the present application is considered as superfluous and dismissed with liberty to the applicants to challenge any order that may be passed on the writ petitions filed by them covering the same or similar issues.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
9. Accordingly, WA No.19 of 2021 and MC (WA) No.69 of 2021 are dismissed at the receiving stage.
Administrative reasons alone are not sufficient cause for inordinate delay in filing an appeal.
The principle of delay and laches is essential in entertaining a writ petition, and a reasonable explanation for delay is required.
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
The court ruled that a writ petition, once withdrawn, cannot be restored after substantial delay unless justified, viewing such attempts as an abuse of the court's process.
The right to withdraw a suit is absolute unless restricted by law, and a significant delay in seeking recall of such withdrawal must be justified with a bona fide explanation.
The court permits withdrawal of Writ Appeal to file a Review Petition, highlighting the provision under the Limitation Act for timely submissions.
An inordinate delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of right without providing sufficient and satisfactory justification or cause for the delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
