TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Office of the Chief Post Master General has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court. Depending on the outcome of the above issue, other issues to be considered are: ( b ) Whether the impugned advertisement inserted in the Reader's Digest issue of December, 2005 is in conformity with the requirement of law. ( c ) Whether the Department has made out a case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High Court . 3. These appeals have been filed against the common final judgment and order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench while upholding the judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned single Judge of the same High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 22679-80 of 2005 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4985 of 2006 dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein. 4. Brief Facts: ( a ) Living Media India Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which publishes the magazines Reader's Digest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the said order, the Postal Department has preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court. 5. Heard Mr. H. P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants-Department of Posts and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Delay in filing the SLPs: 6. Since learned senior counsel for the respondents seriously objected to the conduct of the appellants in approaching this Court after enormous and inordinate delay of 427 days in filing the above appeals, we intend to find out whether there is any sufficient cause for the condonation of such a huge delay. In view of the fact that the application for condonation of delay in filing the SLPs dated 10.02.2011 does not contain acceptable and plausible reasons, we permitted the appellant-Postal Department to file a better affidavit explaining the reasons for the same. Pursuant to the same, an affidavit has been filed on 26.12.2011. After taking us through the same, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in view of series of decisions of this Court and the appellant being a Government Department, delay may be condoned and an opportunity may be giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. 17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. Considering the peculiar facts, namely, the change of government pleader who had taken away the certified copy after he ceases to be in office, the High Court condoned the delay which was affirmed by this Court. ( iii ) In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Others, [1996] 3 SCC 132, while condoning the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak presently posted as SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1 In the official capacity mentioned above, I am acquainted with the facts of the case on the basis of the information derived from the record. 2 On the last date of hearing i.e. 05.12.2011 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petitions to file better affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. 3 It is submitted that the delay is not intentional but is on account of the departmental/administrative procedures involved in for filing the petition for Special Leave Petition. It is submitted that unlike the private litigant the matters relating to government are required to be considered at various levels and then only a decision is taken. 4 In the present case it would be evident from the following that delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances:- 11.09.2009 Date of judgment in LPA Nos. 418/2007 and 1006-2007 29.10.2009 Certified copy of judgment not received from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After receiving the file through proper channel. Central Agency Section sent the file to Ld ASG for his considered opinion and Ld. Additional Solicitor General opined that it is a fit case for filing the Special Leave Petition. 11.09.2010 to 30.09.2010 On receiving the opinion of Ld. ASG the file was sent to Central Agency for drafting the Special Leave Petition. 01.10.2010 Directorate informed that ASG had considered the case and found it fit for Special Leave Petition. 15.11.2010 The panel counsel prepared the draft of Special Leave Petition and submitted the draft Special Leave Petition with file to Central Agency Section for further steps. The draft Special Leave Petition was forwarded to the Department by Central Agency Section for vetting. After factual verification, the draft Special Leave Petition was returned to Central Agency Section for typing and preparation of Paper Book which also took some time. 04.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand but more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on the table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default, no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression sufficient cause should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. 9. This Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. Manager, Jain and Associates , [2001] 3 SCC 277 decided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, [2008] 17 SC 448, the question was whether the respondent-Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the High Court. In para 17, this Court held: ..The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights . After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under:- 29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 12. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
