UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.2.2013. Along with the appeal there are two applications bearing Nos.1847/2015 and 1848/2015 seeking condonation of 240 days delay in filing and 320 days delay in re -filing the appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that delay in filing the appeal can be condoned provided a party is able to show 'sufficient cause' which prevented him from filing the appeal within time. For this purpose, one has to see as to what averments are made by a party in the petition. It has been stated in the application seeking condonation of delay that the impugned judgment was passed on 13.2.2013 and certified copy of the judgment was received by the appellant on 26.2.2013. The same was forwarded to the Deputy Legal Advisor for opinion which was given on 8.3.2013 stating that an appeal deserves to be filed. The papers were put up before the Principal Secretary for approval and sanction was received on 15.3.2013 which was communicated to them on 25.3.2013. On the same date, the matter was brought to the notice of Naib Tehsildar/Patwari for taking an action at the earliest. Thereafter, it has been stated that it took some time to send the papers to the panel lawyer which was only towards the end of June, 2013 when the draft could be prepared and this resulted in 240 days delay.

(3.) NO further information beyond the month of June, 2013 has been given by the appellant as to what were the reasons which had occasioned the delay. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the absence of the reasons given by the appellant, it can be presumed that the appellant was prevented by any 'sufficient cause'. As a matter of fact, if one sees the averments made in para 3 of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the permission by the Principal Secretary, Land & Building, was granted almost within a month but despite the permission having been granted, the appellant was lax in pursuing the matter so as to ensure that the appeal is filed within time. It is inertia on the part of the officials in taking timely action which is further reflected from the fact that even if this 240 days delay is condoned, still there is a delay of 320 days in re -filing the appeal which is much more than the original delay of 240 days in filing the appeal, for which a separate application has been filed by the appellant. In this application also, no cogent reason has been given to explain as to how this delay of 320 days in re -filing has been caused.