MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. AMRUT KISHAN KALUKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. These three applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing revision applications against the respective orders passed by the Court below.

(2.) The orders in question were passed on 29th January, 1999, whereas the revision applications have been instituted in this Court on 26th February, 2002. There is delay of 2 years and 303 days, as computed by the office. Explanation has been offered in the applications on affidavit. According to the applicant, the applicant has no knowledge about the orders passed by the trial Court till communication was received from the Government vide letter dated 19th November, 2000. After receipt of that communication, steps were taken to process the file and those details have been mentioned in paras 6 to 11 of the applications. In substance, it is stated that as the documents were too old and could not be traced, communication was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Investigation Department, to forward certain documents. The documents, which were received were found to be insufficient for which reason additional documents from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of police were called for. It is then stated that opinion of the Government Pleader and public Prosecutor, High Court, as to whether appeals ought to be filed against the impugned decisions was also invited. It is stated that eventually on 27th September, 2001, the Applicant- took a decision to challenge the impugned decisions by way of appropriate proceedings. That decision was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 28th September, 2001, requesting him to make available certain documents. As those documents were not available, a communication was sent to the Joint Commissioner of Police, reiterating the said requests, and later on the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police eventually by way of letter dated 12th december, 2001. The information such as Court No. , Case No. , name of the Police Station, was called for from the Registrar of the Metropolitan magistrate, which became available on 28th December, 2001. As the applicant did not receive all necessary documents from the concerned authorities, it is stated that the staff members of the applicant personally visited the office of the Registrar, as well as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 27th and 28th January, 2002 and, at that time only, relevant documents could be procured. Thereafter, in the month of February 2002, the applicant appointed the Advocate for filing the present revision applications, whereafter the same have been instituted in this Court on 26th February, 2002.

(3.) According to the respondents, however, the explanation offered by the applicant is unacceptable. It is contended by Mr. Avhad, which submission is adopted by the Counsel for the respondents in the companion applications, that the fact asserted by the applicant that the applicant had no knowledge about the passing of the order in November, 2000 is misleading and false. Inasmuch as, the officers of the applicant were appearing before the trial Court till november, 1998 as witnesses. It is then contended that in any case, no justification is forthcoming as to why no enquiry was made at the instance of the applicant about the progress of the matter since November 1998 till November, 2000. That only reflects about the casual attitude of the applicant in pursuing the matter. It is then contended that in any case, even after becoming aware of the order in November 2000, the explanation offered for non-filing of revision applications immediately thereafter is wholly unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted as reasonable cause. It is argued that the record clearly indicates that the conduct of the applicant was lethargic and not diligent in pursuing the proceedings. It is also argued by Mr. Pawaskar that the applicant is a separate entity and it was expected of the applicant to be vigilant in the matter. Moreover, even after receiving the intimation in November, 2000, and in particular, the opinion of the Government Pleader, the applicant and its officers had no good reason to interact with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, instead of directly approaching this Court. On the above arguments, it is contended that delay in filing of the revision applications ought not to be condoned as right has vested in the respondents.