Delay in Filing Appeal Dismissed: Public Entity Held Accountable for Negligence

The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay in filing a statutory Appeal by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The Court found the explanation for the 1298-day delay vague and lacking credibility, emphasizing that public bodies cannot be negligent in discharging their duties. It noted that unawareness of legal position for over 3 1/2 years cannot justify the delay, especially for a public entity. The Court concluded that the reasons provided were neither reasonable nor bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the motion without costs being awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing a statutory Appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a Notice of Motion for condonation of delay of 1298 days in filing a statutory Appeal by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The company had initially filed an Appeal challenging an order but later withdrew it with liberty to file a fresh Appeal upon obtaining clearance from the Department of the Government of India. The reason for withdrawal was based on the belief that the matter should be resolved out of Court due to both parties being Government/Semi Government bodies. However, a subsequent order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that Inter Departmental Dispute Resolution Mechanism cannot deprive parties of their statutory and legal rights. The Appellant claimed unawareness of this legal position until September 2014, leading to the delay in approaching the Court again, as the Supreme Court's order was passed in February 2011.

The Court found the explanation for the delay to be vague and lacking in credibility. It noted that being unaware of the legal position for over 3 1/2 years cannot be a valid ground to condone the delay, especially for a public body. The judgment emphasized that public bodies, despite comprising officials with no personal interest, cannot be negligent in discharging their duties. The Court highlighted that the Government cannot seek condonation of delay by putting forward such reasons, especially when the delay is substantial. No specific responsibility was taken by anyone for the delay, and no lapse or inaction was pinpointed. The Court concluded that the explanation for the delay was neither reasonable nor bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion without any costs being awarded.

---