TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Writ Petition Due to Delay and Laches</h1> <h3>The State of Maharashtra Versus M/s King Furniture Works</h3> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order on a rectification application due to unreasonable delay by the appellant. Emphasizing the lack ... Condonation of delay - Government pleading condonation on the ground of para 10 and Exhibit 'G' at page 35 to the writ petition - Held that:- if for one and a half years and more the files are lying in Government Pleader's office, then, it is not known why there was no promptness or expediency exhibited in meeting the concerned Government advocates, getting the draft prepared and duly filed. If this is how the Government revenue is sought to be protected, then, we say nothing more. A premium on utter negligence cannot be put, complete callousness and carelessness on the part of the Government officials. They cannot expect discretionary and equitable relief from the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the explanation that they furnish is wholly unacceptable. It is time that Government realises that it is not a special litigant. If its officials, including the advocates appointed, are not working, it must proceed against them and take action. It cannot just request the court to condone the lapses and inefficiency or equally dishonesty and corruption. If the court of law is expected to render justice expeditiously, then, it should not be burdened with cases which have been brought belatedly and without any satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay. That these are Government matters and the court cannot condone the delay in movement of files, some inaction and negligence on the part of the Government officials, merely because larger public interest is at stake. Therefore, the explanation for the delay in para 10, with the assistance of Annexure 'G' does not inspire confidence. It does not demonstrate that the Government or the Department concerned was vigilant, serious and attentive and did its best to protect the public revenue. Therefore, delay cannot be condoned. - Decidde against the Government Issues:1) Challenge to order on rectification application dated 28th November, 2008.2) Delay in filing the writ petition.Analysis:1) The writ petition challenged the order on the rectification application dated 28th November, 2008. The appellant sought condonation of delay based on the administrative procedures followed by the Government Department. The delay in filing the writ petition was explained through a detailed timeline of events leading to the delay, as presented in Exhibit 'G'. The appellant emphasized that the delay was procedural and not deliberate, urging for the petition to be heard on merits. However, the respondent argued that the explanation provided was unsatisfactory and lacked reasonableness.2) The court delved into the issue of delay in filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was highlighted that while there is no statutory limitation for such petitions, the court should not show leniency towards the Government if the delay is substantial, unexplained, and amounts to laches. The judgment emphasized that the Government does not enjoy special privileges in terms of delays and must be held accountable for negligence or inefficiency in legal matters. The court scrutinized the timeline of events leading to the delay, noting significant lapses in promptness and diligence on the part of Government officials.3) The court observed that the delay in this case was not reasonable, with files lying inactive for an extended period without necessary actions being taken promptly. It was emphasized that the Government cannot expect discretionary relief from the court if explanations for delays are found to be unacceptable. The judgment underscored the importance of efficiency and accountability in legal proceedings involving the Government, stating that public interest should not be compromised due to negligence or inefficiency on the part of officials. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, highlighting the need for diligence and promptness in legal matters involving the Government.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
