AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice G.R. Udhwani
We have heard the learned AGP Mr. Niraj Ashar for the applicant who has practically submitted his submissions on the line of averments made in the application. The present application has been filed for condoning delay of 364 days in preferring the appeal. The chronology of events for explaining the delay is mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the application. According to the averments, the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, Panchmahals, pronounced the judgment and Award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 26 to 30 of 2009 on 04.09.2012 and certified copy of the judgment and award was applied for on 15.09.2010 and the same was ready for delivery on 29.07.2011. It is further stated that On 04.10.2011, the report of the Deputy Collector, Panchmahals, Godhara, dated 14.09.2011 under the Law Officers'' Rules was received in the branch, which inturn sent to the Executive Engineer for its proposal on 07.01.2012, reminders were also sent on 29.03.2012 and 11.05.2012. The proposal of the Executive Engineer was received in the office on 16.06.2012, and the Special Secretary (Land Acquisition), Narmada Water Resources, Gandhinagar decided on 30.06.2012 to file Appeal before this Hon''ble Court, with instruction to forward the same to the Revenue Department as well as Legal Department. It is also stated that the Revenue Department instructed to obtain approval from the Special Secretary of Narmada Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Gandhinagar, on 21.07.21012 and thereafter on 27.07.2012 the file was again forwarded to the Revenue Department and the same was approved on 30.07.2012 by the Special Secretary of Narmada Water Resources and the file was forwarded to the Legal Department. On 03.09.2012, the Legal Department sanctioned for filing the appeal and instructed to office of the Narmada Water Resources, Gandhinagar. The Government Resolution was received on 07.09.2012 to file First Appeal in the office without certified copy of the judgment and decree. Thereafter, on 12.09.2012, a telegram was sent to the concerned Department for sending the certified copy of the judgment and award. That on 15.09.2012, Special Secretary (Land Acquisition) informed the Executive Engineer about the decision of the Legal Department by letter on 17.09.2012. The Government Pleader''s Office, High Court received the certified copy of the judgment and award from the District Government Pleader, District Court Compound, Panchmahals at Godhara on 29.09.2012. Thereafter, the matter was given to the Government Pleader for drafting and filed on 15.10.2012. Thus, there is delay of 364 days caused in filing the aforesaid First Appeal.
The above chronology of events and the averments scrupulously avoided making of any statement explaining the delay caused at every stage. Therefore, in absence of any explanation, much less satisfactory explanation for the delay caused on the ground collecting necessary material and following administrative procedure is not a good ground for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 364 days.
The Apex Court, in the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, , has, in Para 29, observed that:
...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 bonafide effort, there is no need to accept 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Following the spirit and ratio of the above observations and in absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.