TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>State authorities lose petition after two-year delay without explaining or seeking condonation of delay</h1> The HC dismissed a writ petition filed by state authorities due to laches, as it was filed more than two years after the impugned order without any ... Maintainability of writ application - present writ application was filed more than two years after the impugned order was passed, yet, there is neither an application for condonation of delay nor any explanation for such delay in filing the writ application - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court has made it clear in a series of judgments, including the recent decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal [2020 (10) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT], that there have to be proper and convincing reasons for the delay in the state authorities filing appeals or petitions. The Supreme Court has recently in a series of matters reiterated that the explanation usually offered by the State and its entities for the delay on account of administrative exigencies should not be accepted unless they are shown to be justified. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches. Issues:Delay in filing writ application challenging tribunal's orderAnalysis:The High Court addressed the delay in filing the writ application challenging the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The petition was filed more than two years after the impugned order without any application for condonation of delay or explanation for the delay. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for proper and convincing reasons for delays in filing appeals or petitions by state authorities. The Court highlighted that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the Government, and that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.The Court criticized the petitioner's reasons for delay, which were attributed to the unavailability of documents and bureaucratic processes. It rejected the proposition that the merit of a case should override the period of delay, emphasizing that the bar of limitation is crucial and should not be circumvented. The Court also condemned the practice of seeking dismissal certificates from the Supreme Court to avoid addressing issues and save officers from accountability.In response to the inordinate delay and casual manner of the application, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner-State to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The Court directed the recovery of this amount from the officers responsible for the delay and required a certificate of recovery to be filed within four weeks. Ultimately, the special leave petition was dismissed as time-barred due to the delay.The High Court highlighted recent Supreme Court orders reiterating that explanations for delays due to administrative exigencies should not be accepted unless justified. The Court cited specific orders to support this position and ultimately dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches. Additionally, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the parties were permitted to utilize a printout of the order available on the High Court's website as a certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate as per prescribed procedures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
