$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 27.11.2024 + LPA 705/2023, CM APPL. 53481/2023-Delay 189 days, CM APPL.

53483/2023-Stay UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Sunil Sinha and Ms. Akanksha Chaudhary, Advs.

Versus CAPT MUNISH CHAUDHARY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pushpendra Dhaka, Mr. Anand Singh and Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE SAURABH BANERJEE, J (ORAL)

1. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 14778/2022.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent by directing the appellants to consider the case of the petitioner for functioning as a DGR Empanelled Ex- Servicemen Security Safety and Fire Protection Management Agency (hereinafter referred to as ‘Agency’) under the OM dated 23.02.2006. The said directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge after taking note of the fact that the respondent has been registered with the DGR/ appellant no. 3 on 02.12.2008 when admittedly the policy dated 23.02.2006 was applicable. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 705/2023 Page 1 of 7

3. Consequently, the learned Single Judge, relying upon Kulwant Singh Security Agency & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 13205/2018, has opined that the policy applicable at the time of registration of the concerned officers/ retired personnel would be the applicable policy at the time of consideration of one’s case for acting as an Agency.

4. Before proceeding for adjudication of the merits involved in the present appeal, at the outset we may note, that the appeal has been filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) seeking condonation of delay of 189 days. Having perused the said application, we find that it is one where the appellant has sought to raise only bald pleas, by urging that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the mandatory departmental approvals required for filing the appeal and was not intentional. It is based on these averments that the learned counsel for the appellants prays that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned senior counsel for the respondent opposes the application by urging that the grounds raised by the appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause. He, therefore, prays that the application itself be dismissed. Further, he submits that once it is an admitted position that the respondent was registered with the DGR/ appellant no.3 on 02.12.2008 which was never formally cancelled, it is not open to the appellant to urge that the respondent’s registration had to be treated from the year 2014, when he was empanelled as an Agency for the first time, by which time the policy issued vide O.M. dated 23.02.2006 stood superseded by the O.M. issued in 2012.

6. As per the case set up by the appellants, though the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 705/2023 Page 2 of 7 judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 10.01.2023, it was only on 13.06.2023 that the appellants appointed/ nominated its counsel and handed over the relevant documents to him qua the present case. Thereafter, on 04.08.2023, though preliminary discussions were held with the said counsel, nothing material happened as the nominated counsel of the appellant sought the relevant file pertaining to the present case. It was then on 07.08.2023 that the nominated counsel sent the draft to the appellant, which after vetting by the appellant, was eventually filed on 18.08.2023. All in all, the aforesaid led to cause a delay of 189 days in filing the present appeal.

7. In our considered view, the application seeking condonation of delay, besides being not accomp