2020 (10) TMI 1231 - SC - Indian Laws

Government's Delay Costs Rs. 25,000: Court Stresses Adherence to Timelines and Accountability

The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Versus Bherulal

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the law of limitation for all parties, including Government ... Condonation of delay of 663 days in filing appeal - delay due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents - the issue raised is that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence - HELD THAT:- A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement - It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, it is considered appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner-State of ₹ 25,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time - SLP dismissed. Issues:Delay in filing Special Leave Petition by the Government authorities.Analysis:The Supreme Court highlighted the issue of the Government authorities filing appeals beyond the prescribed limitation period, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory timelines. The Court expressed disappointment in the inefficiency of the Government machinery and cautioned against using judicial pronouncements from outdated times to justify delays. The judgment cited previous cases to emphasize that modern technology should eliminate excuses for delay, and that the law of limitation applies to everyone, including the Government. The Court stressed that condonation of delay should not be a routine benefit for government departments and that they must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays. The judgment underscored the special obligation of government bodies to perform their duties diligently and condemned the practice of seeking dismissal certificates to avoid accountability for delays.The Court rejected the explanation provided by the Government for the delay, attributing it to the unavailability of documents and bureaucratic processes. It dismissed the notion that merit alone can justify condoning delays, reiterating the importance of adhering to limitation periods regardless of the case's strength. The judgment criticized the practice of seeking dismissal certificates in 'certificate cases' to evade responsibility and emphasized that coming to the Supreme Court should not be about obtaining such certificates. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Petitioner-State for the delay, to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks. The judgment warned of contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary if the order was not complied with promptly, emphasizing the seriousness of adhering to timelines and judicial processes.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as time-barred due to the significant delay in filing. The judgment served as a stern warning to Government authorities to respect statutory limitations, perform their duties diligently, and be accountable for delays to avoid judicial repercussions.