TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the compensation amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to ₹ 2,500/- per cent. The Sub-Court, Madurai has delivered the judgment on 29.6.2001 and immediately, Application for getting certified copy of the judgment was made by the learned Government Pleader and after receiving the certified copy, the same was communicated to the Petitioners office. It is claimed that the copy was misplaced by the Petitioners office. Subsequently, the concerned Assistant, who was dealing with the legal section, was transferred and hence, the said post was lying vacant for considerable time. Hence, immediate follow up action could not be taken by the Petitioner. During the review of land acquisition cases made in December 2008, it was found that the certified copy of the judgment made in L.A.O.P.No.33 of 1997 was missing. Hence, on instructions another Copy Application was filed on 5.12.2008. THE said order copy was made ready on 8.12.2008. After collecting all the records, the Government Pleader office attached to this Court was contacted in the month of January 2010 and the Appeal was preferred on 4.3.2010. In the said process, the delay of 3081 days in filing the Appeal has cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension Rules by enclosing draft charge for each individual and charges were framed under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973 and so far as the rest of the officials are concerned, they served only short span of time namely, 18, 7, 17 and 31 day respectively, since no disciplinary action is being contemplated against them. It is also stated that the Housing Board as requisitioning body is also responsible for the inordinate delay in preferring the Appeal before the Court. Hence, a letter was addressed to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Roc/B3/66168/2010, dated 4.12.2010 to take action against the four Executive Engineers who were found responsible for the serious lapse. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if the delay is not condoned, it would be irreparable loss to the public exchequer, since the Court below has enhanced the compensation amount 10 times over and above the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Moreover, the Petitioner also initiated action as against the erring officials who are responsible for not filing the Appeal within the time. Further, learned Additional Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t unless plausible/tangible explanation was offered for the long delay, the High Court will not be justified in condoning such delays. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has also relied upon another judgment reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pravin Paul and another, 1993 (2) MLJ 174 in which this Court has relied upon a decision reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi, AIR 1991 SC 933, wherein it has been held as follows: If the Courts were to accept the mere procedure of the working in Government offices as sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the Appeal, then the delay would have to be condoned in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the Appeal would, for the State Government, become a misnomer. 6. Thus, by relying upon the decisions, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that since no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the inordinate delay of 3081 days, the Petition has to be dismissed. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. It is true that the delay of 3081 days is an inordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y skilful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable. 22. THE expression sufficient cause as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this Court in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Paras 16-17 of the judgment reads as follows: (SCC pp.148-49) 16. THE law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental Authorities. Government, like any other litigant, must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers of agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. 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 fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient cause for not filing the Appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Article 136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and the case was remitted for decision on merits. 12. In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, a Bench of Three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, a Bench of Two Judges considered the question of limitation in an Appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
