DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GOVERMENT INSURANCE Vs. GANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 174 days in the filing of this appeal arising out of the award made by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased victim of the accident. An application seeking condonation of the delay has been filed, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Section Officer of the Law Department of the Government of Karnataka. A reading of the affidavit shows that a certified copy of the judgment and award of the tribunal was forwarded by the Government Pleader to the State Government with his opinion as early as on 4. 5. 2000, which was received by the Law Department on 16. 5. 2000. The opinion and the judgment appear to have been submitted to the solicitor working in the Law Department on 17. 5. 2000. The solicitor in turn returned the file more than a month later on 23. 6. 2000 with a direction that the file pertaining to another motor vehicle case bearing No. 1722 of 1995 should be submitted to him. This file it appears was submitted to the solicitor on 27. 6. 2000. The affidavit goes on to say that the solicitor thereafter reviewed the file and submitted the same on 27. 6. 2000 to the Section Officer. Since there is some confusion in the version set up by the appellant in the affidavit, it will be more appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the same at this stage. It runs thus:

(2.) A plain reading of the above leaves a few questions unanswered. In the first place, the affidavit does not indicate as to why and in what circumstances was the file submitted by one solicitor to another solicitor. Assuming this to be a part of some exercise undertaken by the Department, it is not clear as to how the file reached the Additional Law Secretary-Ill only on 4. 12. 2000. Even assuming that the period spent in processing the file at various levels from the date the judgment and copy of the impugned award was received till 27. 6. 2000 when the solicitor examines the same and submits it to the Additional law Secretary is explained, yet there is no explanation worth the name for the delay between 27. 6. 2000 and 4. 12. 2000 when the Additional Secretary, Law-Ill is said to have received the file. The affidavit, therefore, fails to provide a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the delay in the filing of the appeal.

(3.) MR. Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, argued that the delay in the filing of the appeal including the delay of six months between 27. 6. 2000 and 4. 12. 2000 was entirely on account of the pressure of work in the Law Department of the State government. We have no hesitation in rejecting out of hand that explanation. On the date the solicitor had received the file, the period of limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. Any officer required to handle a matter, where the law requires each day's delay to be explained would be expected to act diligently to ensure that the process of taking a decision and the issue of a proper government order is not delayed. This is not what had actually happened in the instant case. The affidavit clearly shows that the file gathered dust for nearly six months on the table of the officer concerned. Such indifferent and callous conduct of responsible officers working in the law Department can hardly be appreciated let alone rewarded by this court by condoning the delay. Our experience, we regret to say, has been that appeals are filed much beyond the period of limitation and even the affidavits that are sworn to explain the same by the officers concerned are drafted without care and regard for details. The affidavit filed in the instant case is one such classic case. The draftsman of the affidavit or the person, who has sworn the same do not appear to have even cared to go through the affidavit before it was filed. The result is that not only is there no explanation worth consideration by this court for the delay, but even the confusion in the version given by the State is writ large. The legal position regarding condonation of delay is fairly well settled by a catena of the judgments of the Supreme Court. This court has been liberal in its approach towards prayers for condonation of delay, but any such liberal approach cannot possibly step beyond the legal parameters to justify orders of condonation even in cases where no explanation whatsoever is offered. We need hardly say that public interest is bound to be affected in cases where awards are made against the government and governmental agencies, which, if challenged in appropriate proceedings within time permitted by law, may have been set aside or modified, but then the duty to ensure that there is no injury to public interest primarily rests on those who are supposed to protect the same. . If the government or its departments do not show sufficient care and seriousness in matters involving serious consequences, the consequential injury to public interest shall have to be attributed to them alone. It is high time that the law Department of the State Government streamlines its working and ensures that the prevailing lethargy and indifference in matters relating to filing of appeals within time comes to an end. With the above observations, we dismiss I. A.-I for condonation of delay so also the appeal as barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.