Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs C.C.E., Aurangabad

This is a Notice of Motion for condonation of delay of 1298 days in filing a statutory Appeal. The Applicant before us is the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. It had filed a statutory Appeal before this Court challenging the order impugned before us. The same order is impugned in this fresh Appeal. However, the earlier Appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Appeal on the same cause of action as and when the clearance from the Department of the Government of India is obtained.

It is submitted that the parties before this Court being both Government/Semi Government bodies, earlier this Court expressed an opinion that the matter should not be brought in litigation but resolved out of Court or an attempt to be made in that regard. It is in this bona fide belief that the earlier Appeal was withdrawn.

However, later on, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in an order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2011 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2538 of 2009), Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , clarified that such Inter Departmental Dispute Resolution Mechanism cannot deprive parties of their statutory and legal rights. That order was passed in February, 2011 but the Appellant before us was unaware of this legal position until September, 2014 and when it realized that it should approach this Court again.

That is how this delay of 1298 days has occurred. We find that the explanation given for the delay is absolutely vague. Secondly, it does not inspire any confidence simply because the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court was delivered in February 2011. That a statutory or a public body was unaware of the legal position, which has been summarized in the order of the Hon''be Supreme Court, for more than 3 1/2 years, cannot be a ground to condone the delay. That is, therefore, a general explanation and stated to be peculiar to public bodies which is consisting and comprising of officials who do not have any personal interest but are indifferent and negligent in discharge of the duties. For this very reason the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the Government cannot be treated as a special litigant. It has no right in seeking condonation of delay by putting forward such grounds or reasons. The delay in this case is enormous. None has come forward to own the responsibility and to pin point any lapse and specifically on their part, far from setting out the period during which such lapse of inaction occurred. Nothing of this nature has not been set out. No explanation is forthcoming as to where and with whom the files were pending and it was whole responsibility to take a decision to institute these proceedings. For all these reasons, the explanation for the delay cannot be termed as reasonable and bona fide. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. No costs.