AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Manoj Prasad, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
This Interlocutory Application has been filed to condone a delay of 445 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the impugned order dated 04.10.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2021. 3. The appellant/applicant has assigned standard reasons, which are less an explanation and more an excuse for the delay in filing this appeal.
Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III, for the State, has stated about the bureaucratic chaos in getting the approval and movement of the file from one table to another and subsequent final approval in filing of the appeal, which has been delayed by 445 days and has sought condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal.
In the application for condoning the delay, the sole ground taken by the appellants is the time consumed in obtaining approval to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2021, disposing of the Writ Petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that though limitation is only a procedural requirement and must be treated as the maid and not the mistress of justice, delay, if it remains unexplained, must be dealt with strongly as mandated under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Mere excuses must be distinguished from a proper explanation.
The present case, as stated, challenges the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court quashing the letter issued by the Circle Officer, Jharia, to maintain status quo over the property, which property was the subject matter of the dispute in the Civil Suit, where the State was a party to it. Apparently, the delay is inordinate, as the State has pleaded that it moved the file from one table to another and sought approval from one authority to another.
In the case of State of Odisha and Others Vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that if, it is a case of utter lethargy, tardiness and indolence, inordinate delay cannot be condoned. The law has also been settled that there is a distinction between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. A valid explanation may be a good ground for condoning the delay, but mere excuse explaining the lethargy on the part of the Government cannot be a reason for condoning the delay.
In the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. In Living Media India Limited & Another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the delay cannot be condoned where the Government Department or the persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter and taking appropriate steps. The Hon’ble Court has held that in the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay cannot be condoned mechanically, merely, because the Government or a wing of the Government seeks condonation. The claim of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several noting cannot invariably be accepted, particularly in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds the State authorities and its departments as it binds individuals.
In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), through his LR, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 489, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the length of the delay is a relevant factor that the Court must consider when dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The Court noted that, from the tenor and approach of the appellants, it appeared that they sought to fix their own period of limitation for instituting proceedings, for which the law has prescribed a period of limitation. Long inaction cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate, especially where the rights are adversely affected. The parties cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred against technical considerations.
Mr Akthar contended that the State has a very good case on merits and therefore, we must condone the delay so that substantial justice is done. The law is settled that, while deciding an application to condone delay in filing an appeal, the merits of the appeal cannot be examined; However, in deference to Mr Akthar’s contention, we examined the merits, but we are unable to agree that the State has a good case.
The 1st respondent instituted W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2021 to challenge the order passed by the Circle Officer directing maintenance of the status quo over the land pertaining to Khata No.27, Plot Nos.737 and 739. The 1st respondent contended that he was in lawful possession of the land, while the State authorities claimed that the property was recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar, which was incorrect. The 1st respondent relied on the revisional survey record of rights, which acknowledged their possession.
The learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that a civil suit for declaration over the right, title and interest in respect of the same subject matter against the State was pending and during the pendency of such civil suit, passing of such orders by the Circle Officer was improper and, hence, the order passed by the Circle Officer was quashed. The learned Single Judge of this Court also noted that unfortunately, in the said civil suit, the State authorities, who were 2nd and 4th respondents in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2021, chose not to contest the case by not appearing before the Court.
Therefore, we cannot agree with Mr Aktar’s contention about the State having a good case on merits or that substantial justice warrants condonation of unexplained delay of 445 days.
In view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments discussed hereinabove and in the facts of the present case, we find that no ground is made out to condone the delay of 445 days in instituting the appeal and, as such, the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 10828 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is, hereby, dismissed.
Consequently, the accompanying appeal and other I.A.s, if any, will not survive and are disposed of.