TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect discretionary and equitable relief from the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the explanation that they furnish is wholly unacceptable. It is time that Government realises that it is not a special litigant. If its officials, including the advocates appointed, are not working, it must proceed against them and take action. It cannot just request the court to condone the lapses and inefficiency or equally dishonesty and corruption. If the court of law is expected to render justice expeditiously, then, it should not be burdened with cases which have been brought belatedly and without any satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay. That these are Government matters and the court cannot condone the delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive procedure which consumed time. After decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai, the Petitioner has immediately submitted the proposal to the Government for sanction through proper channel. The Petitioner submits that after obtaining the requisite sanction vide letter dated 29.6.2009, and received by the office of the Government Pleader (AS) (Writ Cell) High Court Mumbai on 14.12.2010 earlier Writ Petition No. 5017/2012 was filed. The Petitioner respectfully and humbly submit that the delay, if any, caused in filing writ Petition was not deliberate or willful but procedural. The Petitioner was sincerely interested in prosecuting the Writ Petition. In the circumstances and also in the interest of justice, delay if any deserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. 16.07.2009 Date of the letter sent to Govt. Pleader of the Bombay High Court for drafting of W. P., original side Letter wrongly sent to original side instead of Appellate Side 7. 17.08.2009 Date on which draft of Writ Petition received original side. Wrongly received from original side instead of Appellate Side 8. 24.08.2009 Draft of Writ Petition Submitted to JC(Legal) for approval. 9. 25.08.2009 JC(L) orders DC(CM) to verify the portion in draft containing para 6 having capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.02.2012 Draft approved by Hon'ble CST 18. 13.02.2012 Approved draft received from Hon'ble CST 19. 21.03.2012 Synopsis recd. From Advocate 20. 30.03.2012 Date of submission of W. P. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the above explanation is hardly satisfactory, much less reasonable. Reliance is placed upon the affidavit in reply filed to this writ petition and we see much substance in the contentions of Ms. Badheka on the point of delay. 6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009. On 10th July, 2009, the reply was received from the Government, after which, on 16th July, 2009, a request was sent to the Government Pleader of the Bombay High Court Original Side for drafting the writ petition. Thereafter, a draft of the writ petition was received on 17th August, 2009 and it is stated that the draft went through several officials and supposedly for their approval. Then, it was realised, not until 19th November, 2010, that the files have been despathed to a wrong Government Pleader's office in the High Court and they ought to have been sent to the Government Pleader, Appellate Side and not Original Side. Thereafter, the matter was again pending with the Finance Department and it is admitted that from 14th May, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
