UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAVI PARKASH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal directed against the order dated 3rd March, 1997 of a learned Single Judge passed in I.A. No. 1918/93 C.M. 2855/98 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of about 478 days in filing the appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(2.) It is alleged in the application that the Central Registry of the Land and Development office received a letter dated 20th February, 1998 from Ravi Prakash Jain, one of the respondents, enclosing therewith a photostate copy of the certified copy of the order dated 3rd March, 1997 (received by the Advocate on 11th March, 1997) and cheque for Rs. 79,986.00 The dealing assistant put up the case file on 17th March, 1998 to the Superintendent who on 19thMarch, 1998, returned the same for preparing a brief history of the case. On 1st May, 1998 the dealing assistant resubmitted the file to the Superintendent. In the meantime on 6th May, 1998 representative of the respondents called on the Deputy Land & Development Officer and brought to his notice the said order dated 3rd March, 1997and the pending request for sale permission. Deputy Land &Development Officer directed the section to put up the status of the case by 12th May, 1998. On 12th May, 1998, the file was put up to Deputy Land and Development Officer who referred the file to Assistant Legal Advisor attached to the office of Land & Development Officer for advice on 13th May, 1998. Almost simultaneously Government Advocate was orally requested to apply for certified copy of the said order. This request was followed by a letter dated 15th May, 1998 to the Standing Counsel. On 15th May, 1998 Assistant Legal Advisor sought clarifications of certain facts which were given on 16th May, 1998. Thereafter on 19th May, 1998 Assistant Legal Advisor gave advice to file an appeal against the order dated 3rd March, 1997: Accordingly, on 19th May, 1998 the Law Ministry (Litigation Section) was requested to appoint Counsel for the purpose of filing appeal.

(3.) It is further stated that the facts disclosed that there was considerable delay on the part of dealing assistant and Superintendent in processing the case between February and May, 1998. Thus, the conduct of both of them was officially enquired into by Deputy Land and Development Officer and in his preliminary report he found that dealing assistant and Superintendent were prima facie negligent in processing the aforesaid letter dated 20th February, 1998. Notices to show cause why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them have been issued to dealing assistant and Superintendent.