1996 (1) TMI 378 - SC - Indian Laws

109-day delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal condoned for State; equal-treatment standard applied and pragmatic delay test endorsed

The SC condoned a 109-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal by the State and allowed the appeal. It held the State is entitled to equal treatment, ... Condonation of delay - delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal - expression 'sufficient cause' - extension of the prescribed period of limitation - Held that:- The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant. The expression 'sufficient cause' should, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the cours or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. Thus, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Issues Involved: Condonation of delay, sufficient cause, judicial discretion, government litigation, procedural delays.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay:The primary issue in this case was whether the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows for the extension of the prescribed period of limitation for filing an application or appeal, provided the appellant shows 'sufficient cause' for the delay.2. Sufficient Cause:The Court reviewed several precedents to elucidate what constitutes 'sufficient cause.' In *Ramlal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.*, it was held that the appellant does not need to explain the entire period of delay but only the period between the last date of limitation and the actual filing date. The expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction, as noted in *New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra*.3. Judicial Discretion:The Court highlighted that judicial discretion under Section 5 should not be rigidly applied. In *Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram*, the true guide for exercising discretion is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence. The Court also referred to *Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors.*, where it was held that unless there is a lack of bona fides or gross negligence, the delay should be condoned.4. Government Litigation:The Court acknowledged that delays in government litigation are often due to bureaucratic processes. In *G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore*, it was noted that government decisions are encumbered by procedural delays, and a pragmatic approach should be taken. The Court reiterated that the State should not be given a 'litigant-non-grata' status and that public interest should be considered.5. Procedural Delays:The Court recognized that procedural delays are inherent in governmental functioning. It cited *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantrag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.*, where it was held that the expression 'sufficient cause' is elastic enough to be applied in a meaningful manner to serve the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the delay of 109 days had been sufficiently explained and that it was a fit case for condonation. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal on merits, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The appeal was allowed with no costs.