It High Court · 2006

The counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar and Others us. Kameshwar Prasad Sinah & Anotter, (2009) ( I 9 SCC 94. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay of 679 gays in the fiting of the SLP. The appellant has referred to para 12 of. the said decision, wherein the CF,ACI7.2004 Page No.5 of 11 Hon'ble Supreme has extracted para 11 of another decision of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Haruanaus. Chandramani, (1996) 3 SCC 132. B. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar us. Kameshwar Prasad Stnqll (supra) was a case where, by placing reliance upon the impugned judgment of the High court, a number of writ petitions had been filed in the f" High Court of Patna for grant of similar benefits. It was urged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the judgment impugned had been passed in violation of the provisions of 1aw and the rules applicable and it was creating havoc in the Department and that the Government was facing great trouble in compliance with the directions of the High Court conferring uncalled for benefits on the Respondents in that case. It was also submitted that if the impugned judgment is not rectified or set aside, ttte interest of more I , than 250 officers would be adversely affected. It was also claimed CEACI7,2OO4 Page No.6 of 11 that if promotions are given in terms of the directions of the High Court, the same was likely to upset the entire cadre of Deputy SPs of Police as well as Inspectors of Police in the State of Bihar. If not stopped, the consequence would be uncalled for litigation \Mith heavy financial burden upon the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, looking into the facts and circumstances of that case and with the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned condoned the delay, since the Hon'ble Court was of the r opinion that sufficient cause had been made out by the petitioners in that case.

9. From a reading of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Court condoned the delay since it found sufficient cause therefor. In fact in the said decision, tfle Hon'ble Supreme Court also extracted paragraph 9 from its earlier decision in N. Balakrishnant us. M. Krishnamurthu, (1998) 7 SCC }i (r 123, r,vherein it was inter alia observed as follows:- cELCr7.2004 Page No.7 of 11 "Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactoty."

10. In our opinion, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh ;*-(Supra) does not come to the aid of the appellant in the present case, since the fact situation in the present case is entirely different. It cannot be said that the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a Carte Blanch to every recalcitrant Petitioner or Appellant while deciding the aforesaid case. II. We may also refer to the two decisions relied upon by the respondents. .In tJnton of India us. Tata Yodoqawa Ltmited, 1988 ,A I (38) DLT 739 (S.C) the Hon'ble Supreme Court obsewed as follows:- "From 26.12.1986 to L0.2.1987 and from 6.3.1987 to 24.3.L987 there is no cogent and possible explanation. It may be mentioned that CEACI7.2OO4 Page No.8 of 11 the special leave petition was actually filed on 23.3.L987. There is no whisper to explain what "legal problems in filing the special leave petition arose". It appears to us that no attempt has been made to explain this delay. In that view of the matter we gave further opportunrty to the petitioners to file additional aJfidavit explaining ttre caused, if any, for this delay. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit to the counter aJfidavit on behalf of the respondents that "sr-rch delay is always beyond the control of especially in Government matters as the file has to be routed through several sections of the department." We are aware of the fact that the Government being impersona-l takes 'longer time than the private bodies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay. As stated from the facts narrated heleinbefore there is no sufficient cause to explain ttre delay. hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissecl," ' r L2. A decision of the Division Bench of this Court in - .f. .i 2005 (186) DLT 399 (Delhi) to which one of us (Madan B. Lokur, J) was a party, is also relevant to this case. In this case th,ere was delay of 96 days in the filing of the appeal. The same had been CEACT7,2OO4 Page No.9 of 11 ( returned by the registry of the Court by raising objections, since the same was filed without a supporiing affidavit. For almost two years after the raising of the objection by the registry the appellant did not take any steps and there was a delay of more than two years in refiling of the appeal. Like in the present case, in that case as well the only reason given by the appellant for the delay in filing and refiling of the appeal was that there was frequent transfer of officers dealing with the matters resulting in communication gap between the counsel and the department. This Court did not accept the explanation furnished by the appellant in that case as making out sufficient cause for condonation of dela5r. The appellant has urged the same grounds in the present case as well, to seek condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal.

13. Since we have alreadv observed that we are not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the appellant for seeking condonation of de1ay, in our opinion the delay cannot be condoned 'f I CEACI7.2OO4 Page No.10 of 11 /y and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed on that account. L4. In view of the aforesaid, we reject the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and consequenfly the appeal itself is dismissed as being barred by limitation. {' MPIN HI) L.*I-^-- {--J ' (MADAN B. LOKUR) JUDGE 29'h May, 2006 AS .q,1 ,{ '\ CEACI7,2OO4 Page No.11 of i1