STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARATBHAI SHALUJI BARANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the State of Gujarat seeking condonation of delay of 320 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader has relied on initial affidavit filed by the deponent wherein certain facts were mentioned about following administrative procedure to which learned advocate for the opponents raised an objection that such an explanation did not reveal sufficient cause and thereafter an additional affidavit is filed explaining, in detail, the procedures undertaken for sending proposals, seeking certain legal opinions and following several procedures by various department and filing of Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Government Pleader has relied on additional affidavit ?in ?reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, relevant abstract of which reads as under:

(3.) Against the submissions made by learned Government Pleader, Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate for the opponents has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that except mentioning various dates and names of the department and movement of file, no plausible reason or ground exists whereby this Court can see sufficient cause and the deponent and the department both are negligent in pursuing remedy bona fide and, therefore, relying upon the affidavit ?in ?reply filed by the respondent - original petitioner it is submitted that in view of decision in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, the contention of delay as held in the above referred judgment that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments and even after filing of additional affidavit, so ?called 'better particulars' had gathered from the record absence of diligence by department in prosecuting the matter and further no explanation is offered as to why there was delay in pursuing the matter at every stages with various departments. The negligence and lethargy on the part of the officers / department deserves no lenient view at the ends of this Court and though persons concerned were well aware and conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal. Now, they cannot claim that either any approval or sanction was required of the department and nothing prevented the deponent and concerned department to file the appeal immediately after receiving the certified copy. It is submitted that likewise another decision in the case of Basawaraj and ors. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in SC 0850 2013 P.34 stating no exercise of powers by the Court while considering the application seeking condonation of delay and when the delay is without any justification or unexplained and further a person responsible and / or the department both have not acted diligently, the application for condonation of delay to be rejected at the outset.