SECRETARY APPSC vs SHAIK KHADERVALLI

THIS is a petition to condone the delay of 197 days, but actually the delay is 222 days.

BRIEFLY stated, a complaint was filed against the petitioners herein The Secretary and Chairman of A.P. Public Service Commission. According to the petitioners notice of the complaint was received on 23.4.1993 and by the time they could process the application and prepare the necessary reply, they received an exparte order dated 22.5.1993 and 1.6.1993. It was stated in the detailed affidavit dated 22.3.1994 that on 14.6.1993, a note was put to the Deputy Secretary by the Legal Cell section, which was approved on the same day. Thereafter, the file was sent to the confidential section for furnishing the particulars of the case. The confidential section at that time, as it deals with all aspects of recruitments i.e. getting the papers set by experts concerned from the various universities, printing of question papers, valuation of answer books and scrutiny of the same and publishing the results of various recruitments was busy and could furnish the information required only on 17.8.1993 due to pressure of work. After receiving the particulars from the confidential section, the concerned clerk in the L.C., section put up the file to the Superintendent of the Section regarding the letter to be addressed to the President of the District Forum, Cuddapah for getting the order dated 22.5.1993 reviewed. The note for sending such letter for review was submitted by the section to the Superintendent concerned on 18.8.1993. The note was forwarded by the Superintendent to the Deputy Secretary for approval on 20.8.1993. The letter was approved by the Deputy Secretary on 21.8.1993. The file was returned to the L.C., section on the same evening. The L.C., section sent the letter on 22.8.93 for typing the required number of copies and got the copies typed on the next day i.e., on 23.8.1993. The letter was despatched to the District Forum by the L.C., section on 24.8.93 with a request to review the order dated 22.5.1993. While the petitioners were awaiting the action of the District Forum on the review petition sent by them, they received a notice in E.P.No. 15 of 1993 on the file of the District Forum, Cuddapah on 8.10.1993. A reply was again prepared and sent on 15.10.93 to the District Forum Cuddapah with a request to review the order dated 22.5.1993 and was despatched on 20.10.1993. But in the meanwhile, the petitioners came to know through the publication of news in Udayam Telugu daily newspaper dated 30.1.1994 that execution petition was ordered issuing non-bailable warrants. Immediately, office staff was sent on 2.2.94 to Cuddapah and after obtaining the certified copies they returned to the office on 5.2.1994 and consumer appeal was prepared and filed on 7.2.1994. In the counter filed, it was stated that it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners/ appellants to explain the each day''s delay beyond the terminus line of limitation. But the affidavit filed by them does not show any reason or cause or explanation for the delay and every day''s delay is not explained. Despite the issuance of the notice, they did not appear and were called absent twice i.e. on 8.4.1993 and again on 15.5.93. The petitioners/ appellants have no right to claim that they have been denied the opportunity of being heard. They failed to put appearance even on 19.1.1994 and that, therefore, there are no grounds for condoning the delay.

We have to see whether the explanation offered by the petitioners for condoning the delay is satisfactory.

IT is seen from the dates mentioned in the affidavit that the copy of the order in the consumer dispute was received on 1.6.1993. The Deputy Secretary approved the note submitted by the Superintendent to send the file to the confidential section for furnishing the particulars of the case on 14.6.1993. The confidential section furnished the information required on 17.8.1993. Hence, there is a gap of more than two months. This was explained in the affidavit stating that during that particular period, there was lot of pressure of work and the Public Service Commission has to get the papers set by the experts concerned from various universities, printing of question papers, valuation of answer books and scrutiny of the same and publishing the results. IT was, therefore, stated in the affidavit that on account of this pressing work, there was delay in attending to this particular work by the confidential section. After receiving the note from the confidential Section, the same was submitted to the Superintendent on 18.8.1993 and the same was approved by the Deputy Secretary on 21.8.1993 and the Deputy Secretary returned the file to the L.C., section on the same day evening. On the next day, the copies of letters were prepared and despatched to the District Forum on 24.8.1993 with a request to review the order dated 22.5.1993. There is not much of delay between 18.8.1993 and 24.8.1993 and the movement of the file was explained. Thereafter, the petitioners received the notice in the execution petition on 8.10.1993. For this period of two months from 24.8.1993, as they have sent the representation for reviewing the order, the petitioners were under the impression that since the request for review is pending before the District Forum, they need not take any action for filing the appeal. When they received the notice in execution petition on 8.10.1993, within a week, they sent a reply on 15.10.1993 to the District Forum once again requesting for review of the order in C.D.No. 1 of 1993. While so, they saw the publication in the paper on 30.1.1994 and immediately rushed the office staff to Cuddapah and obtained the copies of the order dated 29.1.1994 passed in E.P. No: 15 of 1993 and thereafter, filed this appeal against the order in the C.D. No. 1 of 1993 with a petition to condone the delay. Thus, it is clear from what is stated in the affidavit that the delay was due to administrative reasons and other pressing work like publication of results and setting the examination papers and printing, we are satisfied that the delay between 14.6.1993 and 18.8.1993 is satisfactorily explained. Thereafter since they have sent an application on 24.8.1993 for reviewing the order dated 22.5.93 and as they were under the bonafide impression that they need not file the appeal, as the review petition is pending, it cannot be said that the delay during the period between 24.8.1993 and 30.1.1994 is not properly explained. It is submitted by Sri K.S. Rama Reddy, representative of the respondent that every day''s delay was not properly explained and that in the absence of such explanation, mere filing the review petition cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. It is true that there are two periods of delays i.e., two months and one month, which are attributable to the administrative delays. We are satisfied that the period of two months from 14.6.1993 to 17.8.1993 is concerned that there is sufficient pressure of work and due to which, the administration could not immediately attend to the work. Thereafter, we are also of the view that after sending the review petition, it is reasonable for the petitioners to wait for the result of the review before they could prefer any appeal.

IT is next submitted that the administrative delay cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. But, they cannot be said to be inevitable rule of invariable application. IT all depends on how the administrative delay had occurred and the explanation offered for the delay depending on facts and circumstances of the case. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnagm and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Other, AIR 1987 SC 1353; it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that: "Every day''s delay must be explained" does not mean that a pendantic approach should be made. Why not every hour''s delay, every second''s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner".

IT was further held: "That in an application filed by the Government for condoning the delay" in fact on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbused with the note taking, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve" "Do also the approach of the Courts must be to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits".

IT is, therefore, clear that having regard to the system adopted by the Public Service Commission to note putting and circulating the files, the delay must be viewed sympathetically. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay is properly explained and that it is not due to any wantonness or negligence on the part of the petitioners. We, therefore, hold that there is sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The delay is condoned. No order as to costs. Delay condoned. _____________