Governmental delay excused in appeal filing, court emphasizes need for liberal construction of "sufficient cause"

The court excused the delay in filing the appeal by the Union of India and the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, citing the collective and institutional nature of governmental decisions. Recognizing procedural delays within government processes, the court emphasized the need for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" for delay, especially when no negligence is involved. Considering the challenges faced by governmental authorities in decision-making due to procedural red tape, the court allowed the application to excuse the delay and condoned it, enabling the appellant to proceed with the appeal on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Excusing the delay

In this case, the appeal by the Union of India and the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, was filed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, setting aside the confiscation of 2200 U.S. Dollars from the respondent and imposing penalties for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appeal was filed with a delay of 77 days, leading to the filing of an application, hotly contested, to excuse the delay. The delay was explained through a series of events starting from the decision to file the appeal on 15th November, 1984, to the actual filing on 22nd January, 1985. The delay was attributed to procedural delays within the government machinery, involving communication between different offices and officials. The Assistant Legal Adviser's discussion with the Counsel and the subsequent clarification sought from the Delhi office were highlighted as reasons for the delay. The Assistant Legal Adviser's proposal not to lodge the appeal was overruled by the Special Director, directing the filing of the appeal, leading to the eventual lodging of the appeal on 21st February, 1985.

The court considered the nature of governmental functioning, emphasizing that governmental decisions are collective and institutional, distinct from individual decisions. The court acknowledged the procedural delays inherent in government processes and the need for some latitude in assessing what constitutes "sufficient cause" for delay. It was noted that while the law of limitation applies equally to private citizens and governmental authorities, the circumstances peculiar to the functioning of the government must be taken into account. The court cited the need for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice in cases where no negligence or inaction is imputable to the appellant. The court recognized the challenges faced by governmental authorities in decision-making due to procedural red tape and emphasized the necessity of allowing some leeway within reasonable limits. The court ultimately allowed the application to excuse the delay and condoned the delay, enabling the appellant to proceed with the appeal on the merits.

---