Order :

ANUROOP SINGHI, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. Appeal/Decree/T.A./6941/2012/Jaipur. The said order was passed in an appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.119/2004, which was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that a detailed justification explaining the specific cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Board of Revenue was submitted. However, the same has not been considered by the learned Board of Revenue in the right perspective and without considering the facts enumerated in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel further submits that it was only on account of political reasons that the said delay occured and by not condoning the same, loss to public exchequer and public interest has been caused. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2014 deserves to be set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned Board of Revenue against the order dated 26.06.2008 be heard and decided on merits.

4. Learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia, Advocate, submits that not only the appeal was filed before the learned Board of Revenue with a delay of 4 years and 50 days, but even the writ petition preferred before this Court has been filed after a colossal delay of around 9 years and no justification whatsoever has been submitted for the said delay in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the said conduct itself demonstrates the lackadaisical approach adopted by the petitioners and they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 28.05.2014 duly considers the justification given by the petitioners with respect to the delay, and a specific finding has been recorded that the petitioners have miserably failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2014 has been passed strictly in accordance with law and the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches as well.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Though the State can expect to be granted some latitude with respect to the action or inaction of its officers, the said inaction cannot travel beyond a particular point so as to defeat the entire legal process. The law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that litigation is initiated within a reasonable time and stale claims are not revived at the whim of a negligent litigant.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has categorically held that government departments cannot claim a special privilege in matters of limitation and that bureaucratic delays cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Relevant paras of the judgment read as under:

“27.It is not in dispute that the person(s) 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 fides, a li