Letters Patent Appeal No. 182 of 2013 · Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court LPA No.182 of 2013 (13) dt.29-08-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. The Principal Secretary to the Governor, Governor's Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna 2. The Secretary & Commissioner to the Governor Null Governor'S Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Kamleshwar Prasad Verma S/O Late Hari Lal Verma Residing In Raj Bhawan Campus, Patna 2. Md. Hasib S/O Late Mohammad Sahdul Mian Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 98, Raj Bhawan, Patna 3. Ram Chandra Ram S/O Late Bhola Ram Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 3, Raj Bhawan, Patna 4. Rajendra Mahto S/O Sri Khedu Mahto Residing In Raj Bhawan Campus, Raj Bhawan, Patna 5. Shyam Mandal S/O Late Narayan Mandal Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 14, Raj Bhawan, Patna 6. Sant Lal Mandal S/O Sri Dasrath Mandal Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 31, Raj Bhawan, Patna 7. Shiv Narayan Paswan S/O Late Bhageran Paswan Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 53, Raj Bhawan, Patna 8. Vakil Pandit S/O Late Bindeshwari Pandit Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 65, Raj Bhawan, Patna 9. Chandar Mandal S/O Late Mahabir Mandal Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 46, Raj Bhawan, Patna 10. Chunnu S/O Late Churka Soren Residing At Peon'S Quarter No. 72, Raj Bhawan, Patna 11. The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna 12. The Commissioner & Secretary Cabinet Secretariat And Co-Ordination Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 13. The Enquiry Officer-Cum-O.S.D. To Governor Governor'S Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. Mr. Sheo Nandan Mishra, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
Legal Reasoning
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 13 29-08-2013 I.A. No. 1135 of 2013 has been filed to condone the delay of 01 year and 114 days in the filing of the Appeal. We have heard counsel for the parties and also Patna High Court LPA No.182 of 2013 (13) dt.29-08-2013 2 considered the explanation for the delay. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that they were not represented by a counsel nominated by them. It was the State counsel who argued on their behalf. The interest and stand of the Appellants was not adequately espoused. After a copy of the order was received it was examined and opinion obtained, all of which took sometime. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed condonation of the delay. It is submitted that the explanation urged does not constitute sufficient cause. The plea that they were made aware of the order only when the respondents furnished a copy of the judgment to them on 06.07.2012 is incorrect. The order reflects that they were duly represented and had been heard. Condonation of delay is primarily a discretionary matter for the Court to consider. There may be circumstances when a small delay totally unexplained may be fatal, and yet a longer delay may be explained. There is a divergence of judicial view on the fact that if standards for applying the discretion can be different where the Government and its authorities be concerned as inevitably procedures do take time. Furthermore, while exercising this discretion, the consequences ensuing if consideration is denied on merits is also relevant. If it deals with an individual case matters would be entirely different. But where Patna High Court LPA No.182 of 2013 (13) dt.29-08-2013 3 the issue relates to approximately 11 persons and directions have been given to pay them all arrears of back wages, the considerations will have to be different. The financial implication of the order is an aspect which cannot be shut from consideration. If the respondents have an order to their benefit, a balance has to be struck with the nature of financial obligations that may ensue if consideration is denied on merits. Court’s have always leaned in favour of an adjudicatory order to the extent possible rather than to decline consideration on technicalities and leave a dispute festering. In (2005) 3 SCC 752 (State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao) it was observed :- `` 15. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on the table for considerable time causing delay- intentional or otherwise- is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the Patna High Court LPA No.182 of 2013 (13) dt.29-08-2013 4 functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice- oriented process. The court should decide the maters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorize the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal, needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.” There is another reason while we are inclined to condone the delay. It has been argued before us that the learned Single Judge placed strong reliance on alleged discrimination in dealing with the delinquent and imposition of punishment when two of them Sri Rajendra Kumar and Jalwa Ram were not even proceeded with departmentally much less visited with any punishment. It is submitted that this is an error of record as departmental proceedings were held against them leading to Patna High Court LPA No.182 of 2013 (13) dt.29-08-2013 5 dismissal. Subsequently, Rajendra Kumar was reinstated. If the Appellants so opine, appropriately remedy of Review lies in the discretion of the learned Single Judge. We therefore condone the delay, permit the Appellants to withdraw the Appeal to avail the remedy of Review is so advised. It shall be open for them to point out other similar grounds if they be of similar opinion. The Appeal stands disposed. (Navin Sinha, J) Md. Ibrarul/- (Vikash Jain, J)