1988 (3) TMI 408 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay under Section 5 upheld even after main appeals decided; officers' fraud not imputed to State

SC upheld the High Court's condonation of delay under Section 5, holding that the fact that the main appeals were meanwhile decided on merits did not ... Condonation of delay - 'sufficient cause' for purposes and within the meaning of, Section 5 - Held that:- The fact that the main appeals are themselves, in the meanwhile, disposed of finally on the merits by the High Court would not by itself detract from and bar the consideration of the correctness of the order condoning the delays. This is an instance of what are called 'dependant-orders' and if the order excusing the delays is itself set aside in these appeals, the further exercise, made in the mean while, by the High Court finally disposing of the appeals, would be rendered nugatory. The submission of Shri Veerappa is, therefore, insubstantial. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental-authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. In assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of Section 5 it might, perhaps, be some what unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government. It relied upon and trusted its law- officers. The High Court noticed that the Government pleader who was in office till 15.12.1970 had applied for certified copies on 20.7.1970, but the application was allowed to be dismissed for default. In one case, however, he appears to have taken away the certified copy even after he ceased to be a Government Pleader. We think in the circumstances of this case, we should also decline to interfere. Appeals are dismissed, but without an order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay2. Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act3. Government's Responsibility and Public Interest4. Procedural Delays in Government Functioning5. Discretion of the High CourtIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay:The appeals were preferred against the High Court's order condoning delays in filing appeals by the Land Acquisition officer. The delays were substantial, with the appeals being lodged much later than the prescribed period. The High Court condoned these delays, which was challenged on the grounds of manifest error and lack of sufficient cause.2. Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:The appellants argued that the High Court erred in accepting the explanation for the delays as 'sufficient cause'. They contended that the rights of successful parties should not be lightly interfered with unless it was established that the appeal could not have been lodged in time despite reasonable diligence. The Government's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the negligence of Government Pleaders, was deemed insufficient and aggravating the negligence.3. Government's Responsibility and Public Interest:The respondent's counsel argued that the Government was put in a predicament by its own law officers, and public interest suffered due to their bad faith and divided loyalties. The technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations promoting public interest and substantial justice. The High Court had already disposed of the appeals on merits, substantially reducing the compensation, making the present appeals against condonation of delay infructuous.4. Procedural Delays in Government Functioning:The High Court considered the chronological sequence of events and the protracted correspondence between the Government-Pleader and the Government. The High Court found that the Government was not negligent and that the conduct of the Government Pleader was extraordinary. The High Court observed that the Government could not anticipate the failure of the Government Pleader to perform elementary duties.5. Discretion of the High Court:The Supreme Court noted that the contours of discretion in condoning delays are set out in several pronouncements. The expression 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. In cases involving Government, procedural delays are inherent due to the decision-making process. The High Court exercised its discretion, considering the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to the Government. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion, noting that the Government should not be penalized for the lapses of some of its officers.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to condone the delays, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in cases involving public interest and the inherent procedural delays in Government functioning. The appeals were dismissed without an order as to costs.