JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM No. 8654/2018 u/S 151 CPC (condonation of delay)

1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 916 days delay in filing the appeal. Replies to the application have been filed by the respondent No.3/DDA, respondent No.10/DMRC, respondent No.12/Young Builders Pvt. Limited. Rejoinders to the replies filed by the aforesaid respondents have also been filed by the appellant University.

2. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant University submitted that the present appeal has been filed on March 01, 2018 to assail the judgment dated April 27, 2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2743/2012 after a delay of 916 days which was principally due to the reasons as explained in the application and the rejoinder to the reply to the application, albeit, the hour to hour-minutes to minutes cause is not pleaded but bona fide factum of situation beyond the appellant control has been delineated. According to him, the present appeal is different from other litigations preferred or contested by the appellant. It is only the case where the approval from the Executive Council of the University of Delhi was required to be taken and before such approval various deliberations preceded so as to apprise the Executive Council of the different shades of the subject matter. Being the statutory body and adherence to the just method of decision making requires consultation with effective department of the University itself and therefore, the final say in the matter rest with the Executive Council which includes the Senior most Deans, democratically elected representatives of Teachers, Chancellor's nominee, Visitor's nominee, Registrar, Treasurer, Director South Campus and Vice Chancellor. He stated that there is no negligence or deliberate inaction or red-tapism on the part of the appellant. He stated that it is a settled law qua the condonation of delay that it is not the degree of delay but the cause of delay which assumes significance. In other words, it is the sufficiency of reason which is the bed rock for deciding the condonation. He in support of his application has narrated the following facts:

(a) The judgment of learned Single Judge dated April 27, 2015 was sent by the counsel representing the University quite late. It was then placed before the legal cell of the University for examining the matter and deciding the further course of action. After a detailed scrutiny which took time since the case filed comprising of approximately 1001 pages was required to be examined.

(b) After going through the voluminous paper book it was opined that the matter be referred to Vice Chancellor for consideration and pursuant thereto a meeting was held wherein it was decided that the matter needs to be dealt with holistically having regard to all the issues decided by the learned Single Judge.

(c) The issue could not be taken up for consideration as the post of Vice Chancellor had fallen vacant w.e.f. October 28, 2015 and the important issue could be taken up for consideration after the new Vice Chancellor had assumed office and taken stock of things.

(d) That the selection process of Vice Chancellor had taken considerable time as there are specific procedures to be followed for the same.

(e) That on March 10, 2016 the new Vice Chancellor joined the office and in order to ensure democratic functioning of the University, it was decided by the newly appointed Vice Chancellor to constitute a Committee. The terms of reference of the five member committee was to recommend the course of action to the University in the light of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the University.

(f) The Committee gave its report on November 11, 2016 which included the University to take appropriate legal professional opinion and guidance.

(g) That based on the report of the Committee it was decided that the subject matter be referred to the Executive Council for the final decision i