TMI Blog

Home

2012 (8) TMI 925

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... <![endif]--> CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 124 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 777 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 125 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 783 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 137 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 810 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 969 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 155 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 995 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 177 of 2012 In STAMP NUMBER NO. 1157 of 2012 TO CIVIL APPL .....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... received by the branch concerned on 11.09.2006. On 27.9.2006, necessary proposal was sent to the Finance Department. It was stated that the sanction letter from the Finance Department was received on 19.10.10. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Commercial Tax sent papers of the case to the office of learned Government Pleader on 21.01.2010 for the purpose of filing the appeal, and the same reached the office of learned Government Pleader on 22.10.2010. It is thereafter stated that by the deponent that the papers so sent were lost and misplaced in the office of learned Government Pleader, and that fact was revealed when the Department enquired about filing of tax appeal. As per the averments, another set of papers were given and the appeal could be filed thereupon only. 3.1 In Civil Application No.182 of 2012 and others, delay was sought to be explained by stating that after the impugned order dated 30.06.2006, certified copy was received 15.11.2006. The proposal was thereafter made to the Legal Department and the Legal Department by its letter dated 26.11.2007, granted permission to challenge the Tribunal s order, which was received on 30.11.2007. The papers for filing appeal wer .....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... d. 4.2 On the other hand, learned counsels appearing in Civil Application No.181 of 2012 and 182 of 2012 opposed the prayer for condonation. It was submitted that delay was not only large, but it was not supported by any plausible explanation. By relying on the affidavit-in-reply, it was submitted that the conduct of applicant was negligent, and no sufficient cause was made out. It was further submitted that the reasons stated in paragraph No. 4 of the applications cannot be the reasons for condonation of delay, much less the delay of 1947 days involved in some applications. He relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court to submit that stricter approach in cases of inordinate delay was necessary. It was submitted that the same yardstick was required to be applied for considering the delay condonation prayer in cases of both private individual as well as where the State is the applicant, and the State cannot be shown any latitude on a spacious ground of `administrative reasons , especially when no sufficient cause has been made out. 5. From the contents of averments in the application seeking to explain the delay, it is seen that the delay is sought to be explained with t .....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... e consideration of causing of prejudice to the other side is a relevant factor, whereas in the latter case, no such consideration arises. As far as the facts of the present cases are concerned, they are viewed either with the criteria of length of delay, or judged from the yardstick of satisfactory explanation, and on both these counts, the case of the State stand bereft of acceptability. 5.4 In Collector (LA) Vs. Kantiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107], the Supreme Court observed that the State as a litigant cannot be placed above the other private litigants. It is true that in cases involving the State and its agencies/ instrumentalities, the court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision-making process, but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities, and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest. 5.5 In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay Vs. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay [1994 Supp .....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

..... er delay caused in preferring Special Leave Petition before it by the Department should be mechanically condoned merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party in absence of plausible and acceptable explanation. The Apex Court observed, 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 bonafide, 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 machinery 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. (para 28) 5.8 The court further observed to caution, In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation t .....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X