AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, i.e., on completion of seven years as Headmaster. I.A.No.1589 of 2021 2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 534 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.1589 of 2021. 3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 534 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit. 4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after coming to the knowledge of order passed by this Court, copy of the order was obtained and it was decided to prefer Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the appellants could not file the Letters Patent Appeal in time. However, in the meantime, it has barred by 534 days and as such, the delay has been caused which according to the appellants is not intentional rather on account of procedural and taking final decision some extra time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns not recognized by law." In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under: "6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds." While considering the similar issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, wherein, it has been held as under: "21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.9. (ix) the conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vrs. Chaitram Maywade, [(2020) 10 SCC 667], after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of judicial time involved, we impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs 35,000 to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. We have put to Deputy Advocate General to caution that for any successive matters of this kind the costs will keep on going up." The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vrs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762, has held that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of the given case, there is no right to the appellant to have delay condoned. At paragraph-12, it has been held as hereunder:- "12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its part. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning of 'sufficient cause'. The consideration of meaning of 'sufficient cause' has been made in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81], wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 9 to 15 hereunder:- "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266: "605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.-The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose as has been held in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336, Lala Matadin Vrs. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770, Parimal Vrs. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Maniben Devraj Shah Vrs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157. It has further been held in the aforesaid judgments that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vrs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., (2002) 3 SC 195, wherein, at paragraph-12, it has been held as hereunder:- "12. Thus it becomes plain that the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iberately" or "remained inactive". 12. It is evident from the judgment impugned which was passed on 22.08.2019 in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the State but the application to obtain certified copy was filed on 24.02.2021, i.e., after lapse of about 18 months. The certified copy was supplied on 03.03.2021. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 08.03.2021. 13. It appears from the averment made in the delay condonation application that no explanation has been furnished as would appear from paragraphs-5, 6 and 7 that the appeal has been decided to be filed after coming to know about the order passed by this Court and it is only thereafter, the copy of the order was obtained. Further, ground has been stated that due to surge of COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant could not file the Letters Patent Appeal. 14. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order in Suo Moto writ petition on the issue of limitation during the period of COVID-19 pandemic on 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 in Civil Writ No.03 of 2020. But here in the given facts of the case, the order impugned has been passed on 22.08.2019 and as such, the appeal ought to h....