AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.H. Waghela, C.J.—The Union of India through the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Dental Education Center, has filed these appeals assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06/07/2012 in W.P. Nos. 22062-63/2012. By the said order, while granting certain reliefs to the respondents herein, the learned Single Judge clarified that the restoration of the Letter of Intent dated 26/03/2013 (Annexure "B") as a consequence of quashing the impugned order dated 18/06/2012 (Annexure "A") would not ipso facto entitled to respondents herein to make admissions to the MDS Course as the last date for admission had already been expired. There is a delay of 204 days in filing these appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application seeking condonation of delay and perused the material on record.
Drawing our attention to the reasons stated in the Affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay and placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, , it was contended by the appellants'' counsel that the delay ought to be condoned. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the delay may be condoned as the appellants have a good case on merits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application for condonation of delay.
We have perused the affidavit accompanying the application. After receiving a copy of the impugned order dated 06/07/2012, it appears the appellants addressed a letter dated 31/07/2012 to their counsel requesting him to prepare the appeal. A reminder was again issued on 04/09/2012 but the counsel asked the appellant to take legal opinion from the Ministry of Law and Justice with regard to filing of an appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, the appellant took legal advise from the Ministry of Law and Justice and communicated the approval to the counsel on 19/09/2012. It is further stated that though the appellant was following with the counsel to file the appeal, the same could not be filed on time, as the tenure of the Government counsel expired, which lead to some "communication gap with the counsel".
The said explanation in our view is not sufficient to condone the delay. The limitation period prescribed for filing of a intra-Court appeal u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is thirty days. But in the instant case, there is a delay of 204 days in preferring the appeal. There is no explanation whatsoever, as to why so much of time was taken in preferring the appeal except making reference to the procedure that was adopted prior to filing of the appeal. Reliance placed in the case of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah, is misplaced, as in the said case, the condonation of delay of seven years by the High Court in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai, was not accepted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, before the High Court was dismissed by setting aside the order of the High Court.
Recently the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, , has stated that the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions in the matter of condonation of delay and as the Law of limitation binds everybody including the Government with the bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. At Para 29 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows:-
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.
Having regard to the aforesaid observations, we are of the view that the explanation offered in the instant case is not sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.A. II/2013, would not survive for consideration.