2012 (4) TMI 341 - SC - Companies Law

Condonation denied for 427-day delay in filing SLPs; government not excused by bureaucratic procedures or delay

Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd.

SC denied condonation of a 427-day delay in filing SLPs, finding the respondent department failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for delays at ... Condonation the delay of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court - sufficient cause - period of limitation - company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which publishes the magazines 'Reader's Digest' and 'India Today' - Held that:- It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 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 bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).2. Conformity of the impugned advertisement with the law.3. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing SLPs:The primary issue was whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the SLPs before the Supreme Court. The Court examined the reasons provided by the Postal Department for the delay, which included procedural red-tape and bureaucratic processes. The Department argued that the delay was not intentional but due to unavoidable circumstances and administrative procedures. They cited several precedents where the Supreme Court had adopted a liberal approach in condoning delays for government entities, emphasizing that public interest and substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.However, the Court found that the explanations provided were inadequate and demonstrated a lack of diligence. The affidavit filed by the Department detailed the timeline of events but failed to justify the prolonged delays at each stage. The Court noted that the Department did not apply for the certified copy of the High Court judgment promptly and displayed a pattern of indifference and procedural delays. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and that condonation of delay should not be granted mechanically.The Court concluded that the Postal Department had not provided a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay and had failed to demonstrate bonafide efforts. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay.2. Conformity of the Impugned Advertisement with the Law:Since the Court dismissed the appeals on the ground of delay, it did not delve into the merits of whether the impugned advertisement in the Reader's Digest issue of December 2005 conformed to the legal requirements. The question of law regarding the advertisement's conformity was left open to be decided in an appropriate case.3. Interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:Similarly, the Court did not address the issue of whether the Department had made out a case for interference under Article 136 to reopen the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court. This issue was also left open for future consideration in an appropriate case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Postal Department due to the inordinate delay of 427 days in filing the SLPs, finding that the Department had not provided sufficient cause for the delay. The Court did not examine the merits of the other issues concerning the impugned advertisement and the interference under Article 136, leaving these questions open for future adjudication.