TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.12.2016 and there is not even a whisper in the writ petitions as to what prevented the petitioners from challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority dated 14.09.2016. In other words, at every step, petitioners have been exhibiting laxity, negligence, carelessness and what is applicable to a rustic villager or a person who is not conversant with the worldly affairs, i.e., to plead ignorance about nuances of filing appeals, cannot be extended to the petitioners herein because first petitioner was a Group 'A' officer in Government of Karnataka and the second appellant is none other than his wife. In other words, they are fully conversant with the nuances of filing petitions and appeals as is evident from their acts in challenging orders passed by authorities in different forums at different stages. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law as framed in the appeal memorandum which requires to be framed in these appeals to be adjudicated and answered - Appeal dismissed. - M.S.A. Nos. 46 and 47/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2020 - Aravind Kumar And Pradeep Singh Yerur, JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, Advocate For the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed the writ petitions. In fact, the learned Single Judge seems to have been persuaded by the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for petitioners which was to the effect that provisional attachment order as well as confirmation order passed by the adjudicating authority has already been challenged before the appellate Tribunal and same was pending. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that statute itself provides for filing an appeal and in view of the submission having been made that the provisional order as well as order of adjudicating authority having already been challenged in the appeal, writ petitions came to be dismissed. This order passed in the said writ petitions has become final as there is no challenge to the same. 4. There was no such appeal filed challenging the order of adjudicating authority as on date writ petitions came to be disposed of i.e., as on 16.05.2018. Subsequently, appeals came to be filed before the appellate Tribunal on 03.07.2018 along with applications for condonation of delay since there was delay of 657 days in filing the appeals. Appellate Tribunal after considering the applications for condonation of delay, rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 14.09.2016 and same had also been produced at Annexure-G which would indicate that there was no suppression of facts by petitioners whatsoever. He would elaborate his submissions on the said issue and contends that entire proceedings initiated against petitioners had been challenged and not seeking for quashing of the order dated 14.09.2016 specifically would not arise as it was inconsequential and same would recede to background. He would also contend that petitioners have been prosecuting the right cause before the wrong forum and as such, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would get attracted. As such, he prays for framing substantial question of law by answering the same in favour of appellants by allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the appeals for being adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, Sri Jayakar Shetty, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-1 would support the impugned order and contends that by trick and stratagem, petitioner wanted to protract the proceedings before various forums by making mis-statements before judicial foras and as such, conduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion sufficient cause which also finds a place in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been consistently held that sufficient cause should receive liberal interpretation rather than pedantic approach. It is no doubt true that no litigant would stand to benefit by approaching the Courts belatedly. As such, wherever issue regarding delay would arise, there may be liberal approach while examining the plea of delay, it is not the length of delay, but it is the cause for delay which would be of paramount consideration. However long the delay might be, if the cause shown is sufficient or in the proximity of truth, such delay deserves to be condoned. On the other hand, if the delay is unexplained or there is mis-statement of facts or suppression of facts irrespective of short delay, it would not receive liberal construction or olive branch would not be extended by the Courts to such unscrupulous litigants for condoning the delay. It is trite law that when technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, such technicalities will have to necessarily kneel down before substantial justice. We are reminded of the judgment of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e say so for the simple reason that learned Single Judge who disposed of writ petition Nos. 63381-382/2016 has clearly observed at paragraph 12 of the order to the following effect: 12. In this connection, I have also perused xxx assistance of the petitioners. However, the said Provisional Attachment Order passed by the respondents/authorities and also the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority are said to have been already challenged before the appellate Tribunal and the proceedings are still pending. (emphasis supplied by us) This would clearly indicate, but for the submission made by petitioners therein, aforesaid observation would not have been made by the learned Single Judge and writ petitions would not have been dismissed. Probably writ petitions might have been considered. 12. Even otherwise, when the memo dated 07.12.2017 came to be filed by the learned Advocate appearing for respondents contending that writ petitions are not maintainable, least that was expected of the petitioners as a vigilant litigant, was to either seek for inclusion of the prayer for quashing of the order dated 14.09.2016 or filing of an appeal before the 'Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
