https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296312 SC dismissed the State's special leave petition as time barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 545 days in challenging an order in writ appeal, which itself had been filed with a delay of 783 days. The Court held that no satisfactory explanation, specific dates, or reasons were furnished for the prolonged inaction. Characterizing the matter as a "certificate case," SC observed that the petition appeared intended merely to obtain a formal dismissal to shield errant officials from accountability rather than to bona fide pursue legal remedies. The State was reminded that if losses were suffered, responsibility must be fixed on negligent officers instead of presuming automatic condonation of delay. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296312 SC dismissed the State's special leave petition as time barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 545 days in challenging an order in writ appeal, which itself had been filed with a delay of 783 days. The Court held that no satisfactory explanation, specific dates, or reasons were furnished for the prolonged inaction. Characterizing the matter as a "certificate case," SC observed that the petition appeared intended merely to obtain a formal dismissal to shield errant officials from accountability rather than to bona fide pursue legal remedies. The State was reminded that if losses were suffered, responsibility must be fixed on negligent officers instead of presuming automatic condonation of delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296312