State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

C.M. 3601C of 1998 is an application for impleading the Legal Representatives of the deceased respondent. C.M. 4097C of 1997 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The counsel for the deceased respondent was already present to represent the Legal Representatives and has argued the case. C.M. 3601C of 1998 is allowed. Legal Representatitives are, therefore, ordered to be brought on record subject to just exceptions.

The respondent had filed a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. However, the appeal over the same was allowed by the lower appellate Court on 11.5.1996. As per the averments in the application, the certified copy thereof was applied on 18.7.1996. The appellant claims that the last date for filing the appeal was 19.8.1996. Further contention of the appellant is that the Registrar of this court returned the appeal with one of the objections to the effect that the appeal was barred by 290 days.

It is also contended that the District Attorney, Hoshiarpur vide his letter dated 20.5.1996 sent his comments and other document to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation and Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, to examine whether the case was fit for filing an appeal. However, no copy was endorsed to the concerned department. By letter dated 22.7.1996, the Director, Prosecution and Litigation and Additional Secretary to Government Punjab, wrote to the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Health (RWS) along with copies to Supreintending Engineer, Public Health (RWS) Circle, Hoshiarpur and District Attorney, Hoshiarpur opining that the department was of the view that it was not a fit case for filing appeal. It is contended that no copy of the letter was endorsed to the concerned department.

On 16.8.1996, the concerned department wrote to District Attorney, Hoshiarpur regarding filing of the appeal. It is also contended that on receipt of endorsement dated 30.10.1996 addressed by the Chief Engineer, Public Health, North, Patiala, Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Public Health, Chandigarh, that the Chief Engineer has desired to attempt the appeal (emphasis supplied) because a similar writ petition filed against the the Government was dismissed on 16.7.1996.

Thereafter, the Under Secretary to Government Punjab, Public Health Department wrote to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab that the case may be defended in the High Court. However, as no copy was sent to the concerned department but vide endorsement dated 11.12.1996 there was a direction to depute some responsible person.

It is further contended that Executive Engineer vide his endorsement dated 5.5.1997 forwarded the letter dated 21.4.1997 written by Shri R.S. Sodhi, Advocate on record, New Delhi to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Hoshiarpur but no copy was addressed to the concerned department. It is further contended that vide memo dated 30.5.1997 received in the office of Advocate General, Punjab on 2.6.1997, the Director of Prosecution and Litigation and Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab issued instructions to the Advocate General Punjab. Copies of the same were endorsed to the Under Secretary to Government of Punjab. However, no copy was sent to the concerned department. It is further contended that immediately the concerned department on 4.6.1997 deputed his official along with certified copy of the impugned judgment to contact the Advocate General, Punjab for the purpose of filing appeal, who on the same day delivered the said certified copy of judgment to the concerned dealing hand in the office of Advocate General. After preparing the grounds and completing other formalities, the Advocate General, Punjab''s office filed the appeal on 5.6.1997.

These are the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay. Of course, the application for condonation of delay was filed on 13.8.1997. It can be considered that the appeal was presented on 5.6.1997. Learned State counsel argued that the delay may be condoned because the time taken in because (course ?) of correspondence that had to be carried out in the Government departments. However, question is whether a reasonable time has been taken or not. It can also be found that at one stage the idea of filing the appeal was given up. As mentioned above, it is contended by the appellant that on 22.7.1996, the Director of Prosecution and Litigation wrote the Chief Engineer, Punjab Public Health Branch, South, Patiala that the department was of the view that it was not a fit case for filing appeal. However, no copy of that letter was endorsed to the concerned department. It can also be found from the averments made in the application that the Chief Engineer had desired to attempt the appeal because a similar case was decided in favour of the Government on 16.7.1996. This was mentioned in the letter of the Chief Engineer dated 30.10.1996. Delay, therefore, is to be considered from 19.8.1996 to 5.6.1997. The period of delay is a long one. However, that should not be that impediment in condoning the same. The question now arises is whether because of the opinion expressed at one stage that the case was not worth filing appeal, it can be inferred that the appellant had desired to close the chapter and not to file the appeal. It was the Director of Prosecution and Litigation who wrote to the Chief Engineer, Punjab that matter was not worth going in appeal. As mentioned above, the letter is dated 22.7.1996. The Chief Engineer by his letter dated 30.10.1996 had desired that the appeal be filed because of decision in a similar case in favour of the Government. After the letter dated 30.10.1996, till 5.6.1997, a long time has elapsed. At least, when the Director of Prosecution and Litigation was moved to file the appeal by the Under Secretary to Government Punjab on 5.11.1996 (obviously after the period of limitation was over), no prompt steps were taken to file the appeal. Therefore, from the contentions in the pleadings it cannot be said that any reasonable cause for this delay has been made out. Though, the court may not insist on explanation of day to day delay and can consider the question that in a Government department moving of the files takes time, at least there should be some explanation for the delay. In the present days, it will not be proper to expect the Government official just to put a note and wait for the letter of another department. If the matter is urgent, it should be mentioned that the matter is urgent. From the contentions in the pleadings of the appellant, it connot be gathered that at any stage any official had shown the urgency regarding the matter. Had it been shown from any document, the subsequent delay, mentioned above, could have been considered. However, in absence of the same, it cannot be said that there was a reaonable ground for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.