2022 (11) TMI 1585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. 2. The relevant, in brief, are as under. 3. The respondent (the plaintiff in the trial court) filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the notice No. 784 dated 19th December, 2009 issued by the defendant is illegal, null and void and the plaintiff has been wrongly directed to close all the business activities other than that of the agricultural produce in the allotted booth. In substance, the plaintiff claims that he has been allotted Booth no. 141 against a payment of a sum of Rs. 62,000/- in the Grain Market, Babain and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the defendants had to offer possession of the plot to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of allotment, provided that all the man....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been given for not filing the appeal within time. The ground taken by the applicant is no ground to condone a delay of more than three years." 4. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to furnish sufficient cause for filing the appeal after such an inordinate delay. 5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 6. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner, within the period of limitation, requested its head office to grant sanction for filing the appeal but it was received only on 16th August, 2017. He submits th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SC 361 : (1962) 2 SCR 762; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006] ; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 4 SCC 365 : AIR 1979 SC 1666 : (1979) 3 SCR 694] ; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953 :(1970)2SCR90]; Collector,Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 etc. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. 17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes "sufficient cause" for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural....