STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MARIMALLEDEVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. II is an application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is barred by 518 days time. The application for condonation of delay has been supported by affidavit sworn, by a Section Officer of the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. I have been taken through that affidavit by learned Government Pleader. A reading of the affidavit clearly shows that no sufficient explanation has been furnished explaining the delay and everything has been taken in an easy going manner by the State Law Officers and the Officers of the Law Department. No doubt it is well-settled that in the matter of condonation of delay, party has to explain each day's delay, and in the matter of State Government, looking to the multifarious activities of the State, some lenient view should be taken. But this does not mean that everything should be taken* as" for granted, even if there is no explanation. The judgment impugned had been delivered on 24th of March, 1992. As appears from the record, application for copy appears to have been moved on behalf of the learned Government at the earliest possible i.e., on March 26, 1992 and the copy became ready for delivery- on 27-4-1992 and the copy was delivered on 8-5-1992. According to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the copy of the judgment and award was forwarded by the Government Pleader, Mysore on 16-6-1992 and was received by the Office of the Law Department on 23-6-1992. 90 days of period for filing the appeal expired on 23rd of June, 1992. In the affidavit, it has been stated as under vide, paragraph 3:

(2.) The appeal appears to have been filed on 3-1-1994. On office having pointed the delay, it appears application for condonation of delay was moved on 5-7-1994. Per se the limitation for filing the appeal had expired 518 days earlier than the date of its filing. Limitation for filing the appeal expired on 2nd August 1992, after giving deduction of the time consumed for obtaining the certified copies. A party is required to explain each days delay from the last date of limitation, why the appeal could not be filed on the last day of limitation and subsequent thereto. The affidavit though no doubt represents the functioning of the State and State Officers in a easy going manner, as for one year from the date of receipt of the copy that is from 24-6-1992 to 24-7-1998. Certain particulars were required from the Government Pleader's Office, Mysore. They were submitted on 24-7-1992. But from 24th July, 1992 and thereafter no sufficient explanation has been furnished. When particulars with copies of judgment and decree were placed before the Under Secretary on 24-7-1992, why the Under Secretary could not pass any orders or furnish any opinion for almost one year that is till 7-7-1993. In the affidavit it has not been explained as to when transfer of Under Secretary has been made and when the other Under Secretary took charge. It is nowhere the case of the State that for and on every day the Secretaries were transferred and no Under Secretary could look to the file. If the date of transfer of Under Secretary would have been indicated, it would have clearly shown that for quite long time files were kept unnoticed and unlocked after. Then again from 7-7-1993 to 22-11-1993, the file was kept idle before the Additional Law Secretary and Deputy Secretary. As per affidavit it is on 22-11-1993, the Additional Deputy Secretary saw the file and forwarded to the Additional Law Secretary, who sanctioned the filing of the appeal on 22-11-1993. It is nowhere indicated when the file was sent to the State Government and when they were received by the Office of the Government Pleader. If the file had been sent and orders of sanction were issued to the Government Pleader on 24-11-1993, when they were actually served or handed over to the Government Pleader, this is not indicated. There is no proper and sufficient explanation for the period between 24-7-1992 to 7-7-1993, nor is there explanation for the period from 7-7-1993 to 22-11-1993, as to why Additional Deputy Secretary could not look to the file for almost 4 months and there is no further explanation as to what has been done during the period from 22-11-1993 to 3-1-1994. When no explanation has been given for the period referred to above, the Court cannot assume or presume that there was sufficient cause for no file being looked or taken orders, by the officials of the department, for almost one year during the period from 24-7-1992 to 7-7-1993 and from 7-7-1993 to 22-11-1993 and thereafter. This really indicate nothing but lethargy on the part of the officials of the Governmental Departments. This really brings about the picture how these matters are treated by the Government Department, assuming that every delay may be condoned, whether they do explain or do not explain the cause for delay. This is a mistaken notion. If no explanation is given the Court is not going to presume that there is enough cause or sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant if fails to show sufficient cause. It is not the duty of the Court to make out sufficient cause, be it the applicant-State or an ordinary person.

(3.) Thus considered in my opinion the application for condonation of delay does not per se explain the cause or sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. The power to condpne delay is a juristic power. Jurisdiction has to be exercised judiciously, keeping the basic principles of law. But the Court cannot presume and assume the facts. When the Court is not to. assume the fact as to question of delay when none is stated the application has to be rejected. As such the application for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby rejected.