2024 (1) TMI 1412 - HC - Indian Laws

State's 5-year delayed appeal dismissed for failing to establish sufficient cause under Section 5

The MP HC dismissed the State's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal after 5 years 10 months and 16 days. The court held that Section ... Condonation of delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing appeal - delay is occurred due to the procedural follow of and reason beyond the control of appellant - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The words 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 cannot be liberally construed only because the party in default is the Government. Section 5 makes no distinction between the State and private individual or an institution when it has the need to establish sufficient cause. The doctrine of equality before law demands that the litigants including the State as the litigants are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. In considering the condonation of delay by the Government, the court should adopt a pragmatic approach. If the State fails to offer and explain sufficient cause, the delay may not be condoned. In the case of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi [1990 (12) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the petition was barred by limitation of 90 days and no satisfactory explanation of such delay was shown. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay alone by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation [2015 (3) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT], it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases involving State and its agencies while deciding the application for condonation of delay the fact that sufficient time is taken in decision making process of State can be taken note by Court but delay cannot be condoned as matter of course on ground that dismissal will cause injury to public interest when the delay is due to total lethargy or utter negligence of its officers. In case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. Amarnath Yadav [2014 (5) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the delay of 481 days in filing the special leave petition has held that moving of file from one department/officer to the other is not sufficient reason for condoning such an abnormal delay. Conclusion - No insufficient or plausible reason has been put forth by the State which can be said to be satisfactory and which can be deemed as sufficient cause. Since the inordinate delay of 1788 days has not been explained satisfactorily and no sufficient cause has been shown for such delay, such inordinate delay cannot be condoned. Application dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days in filing the appeal by the appellant/State can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.What constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in the context of government appealsRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Condonation of DelayRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The application for condonation of delay is governed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period if the applicant can demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court cases such as Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi, and others, to delineate the principles guiding the condonation of delay.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court emphasized that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated by the appellant, and it cannot be liberally construed merely because the appellant is the government. The court highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse,' where an explanation provides facts and reasons, whereas an excuse is a defensive denial of responsibility.Key Evidence and Findings:The evidence presented included the timeline of communications and actions taken by the government officials, which showed substantial delays at various stages. The court noted that the initial delay in notifying the Collector and subsequent bureaucratic delays were not satisfactorily explained.Application of Law to Facts:The court applied the principles from the cited precedents, particularly focusing on the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay. The court found that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay, as the reasons cited were procedural and did not justify the extensive delay.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The appellant argued that the delay was due to procedural follow-ups and was bona fide. However, the respondents contended that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, and day-to-day delay must be accounted for. The court sided with the respondents, noting the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.Conclusions:The court concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the delay, and thus, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'The words 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 cannot be liberally construed only because the party in default is the Government.''In considering the condonation of delay by the Government, the court should adopt a pragmatic approach.'Core Principles Established:The doctrine of equality before the law demands that the State and private individuals are treated similarly under the Limitation Act.Government departments must perform their duties with diligence, and procedural delays do not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause.'Condonation of delay is an exception, not a rule, and requires a plausible and acceptable explanation.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay. Consequently, the second appeal was also disposed of.