AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MP-PMLA-1768/DLI/2015 (COD)
The application MP-PMLA-1768/DLI/2015 has been filed by the applicant Shri R.B. Singh, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal
Office, New Delhi, for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the appeal FPA-PMLA-933/DLI/2015 against the order dated 11.08.2014 passed in
original complaint no. 282/2014 by Adjudicating Authority under PMLA in the matter of Shri R.B. Singh, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
v/s Om Prakash Nahar.
The applicant has pleaded that the order dated 11.08.2014 was received in the office of the appellant/applicant on 30.09.2014 and appeal against the
same was filed on 8.6.2015. It has been stated that there was no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the appellant and the delay occurred due
to time taken in deep examination and long deliberation required from one officer to another for the decision taking process in the Government
Department, constitution of a Review Committee for examining the impugned order, deliberation of the review committee and communication of the
decision for granting permission to file the appeal, drafting of appeal , preparation of necessary bills and cheques for the payment of requisite filing
fees.
The respondent has pleaded that the appeal has been filed after much delay without showing any sufficient cause and without any supporting
documents.
We have heard both the parties. The applicant has harped upon the point that he being a Government Department ought to be given allowance for
delay in decision making by the Government and he should not be equated with a private citizen. The applicant has cited in his support the decision of
the Honâ€ble High Court of the Karnataka in the case of Union of India v/s Suresh N. Shetty [1986(25) ELT657 (kar.) ], in which the Honâ€ble High
Court condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal observing that the appellants decisions were collective and institutional decision as distinct
from individual decision and that the words “sufficient cause†must generally receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice
when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to appellant.
The respondent on the other hand has vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant and cited the decision of the Honâ€ble Supreme Court in
Post Master General v/s Living Media India Limited[ (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 ]and State of Uttar Pradesh v/s Amar Nath Yadav [(2014)
2 Supreme Court Cases 422]. The respondent has relied in particular on paras 27 to 30 of the judgment in the case of the Post Master General v/s
Living Media India Limited, which are re-produced below:-
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed
period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of
plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction
or lack of bona fide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal mechanically and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and
available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities and 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 department. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not
be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates,
according to us, the Department has miserable failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.â€
It is an admitted fact in the case that there has been a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal. It is also a matter of fact that no supporting documents
have been filed by the appellant showing “sufficient cause†as to how the appellant had been prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated
period of 45 days under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of PMLA (Appeal) Rules, 2005.
The judgment of Honâ€ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India v/s Suresh N. Shetty relied upon by the applicant in which the High
Court allowed the condonation of delay of 77 days in that case treating the functioning of the Government on a different footing vis. a vis. private
citizen is of no avail to the applicant as the Honâ€ble Supreme Court in its recent judgments passed in 2012 in the matter of Post Master General v/s
Living Media India Limited and in 2014 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v/s Amar Nath Yadav has held that the Government Department cannot
claim that they have a separate period of limitation and in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation the delay cannot be condoned
mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party to the appeal. The Honâ€ble Supreme Court has further laid
down that the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view
of the modern technologies being used and available. The Honâ€ble Supreme Court also ruled that condonation of delay is an exception and it should
be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments and that the law shelter everyone under the same light and should not be swirled
for the benefit of a few.
From the breakup and the reasons for the delay as given by the applicant in this case it is evident that there has been inexplicable delay of 204 days
including 22 days in just sending the certified copy of the impugned order to the head office, 36 days in just sending a reminder letter to the head
office, 23 days in communication of permission granted by the Director of Enforcement Directorate for filing the appeal to the concern officers, 104
days in just drafting the appeal and 26 days in getting the officials sanctions.
We find that no proper explanation has been offered by the applicant for the delay except mentioning of various dates and the applicant has miserably
failed to give any acceptable and satisfactory reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay of 204 days.
In view of the above the miscellaneous petition for condonation of delay is rejected.
Accordingly the appeal FPA-PMLA-933/DLI/2015 is also found to be not maintainable and is dismissed.