STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. TRIPURA TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the State-appellants for condoning a delay of 70 days in presenting the connected writ appeals based on identical facts are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) IT may be noted that the impugned judgment and order was delivered on 21. 3. 2003, a certified copy whereof was obtained by the State-appellants on 27. 3. 2003 and that the period of limitation for filing the writ appeal got expired on 27. 4. 2003. Yet, the appellants managed to present the appeal only on 4. 7. 2003. At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that of late, there is a tendency on the part of the Government Departments to take for granted the matter of condonation of delay in view of the liberal approach made by the superior Courts on the ground of the impersonal nature of functioning of the Government. No urgency appears to have been accorded to Court cases perhaps on the misconceived notion on the part of the concerned officials that even inordinate delay would be condoned at the mere asking. This is unfortunate. The very object of enacting the Law of limitation is being frustrated.

(3.) IT is against the backdrop of the above observations that we now proceed to examine the case of the appellants. According to the appellants, after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment, the matter was sent to the Finance Department for examination on 28. 3. 2003. On 29. 3. 2003, the Finance Commissioner referred the File to the Law Department for its opinion on the feasibility of preferring an appeal from the judgment and order. On 3. 4. 2003, the Law Department gave its opinion and sent the File back to the Finance Department, which ultimately placed the File before the Minister of Finance on 21. 4. 2003. The Hon'ble Minister on 21. 4. 2003 directed that the matter be placed before the learned Advocate General for his opinion on the matter. The Ld. Advocate General gave his opinion on 5. 5. 2003 advising that an appeal be preferred. Thereafter, the File was placed again before the Hon'ble Minister, who gave the approval for appeal. On 15. 5. 2003, the File was eventually made over to the learned counsel for preferring the appeal. It is stated that since two appeals were being preferred against a common judgment, the Ld. Counsel had to prepare two memos of appeal and 4 connected Misc. applications and took considerable time for preparing the same. However, it is again stated that their counsel and his family were ill due to viral fever between 19. 5. 2003 and 27. 5. 2003, which incapacitated him from studying the File. On 9. 6. 2003, the draft Memos were sent to the Finance Department for completing the formalities such as vetting by the Law Department. It would appear that from 9. 6. 2003 to 18. 6. 2003, the matter was pushed back and forth within the Secretariat. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary took his own time in modifying the memos of appeals as per the advice of the Law Department and managed to send the File to their counsel only on 30. 6. 2003. This Court was obviously closed on vacation from 21. 6. 2003 to 1. 7. 2003. So, according to the appellants, delay inevitably occurred in the process, and the appeals could be filed only on 4. 7. 2003. The appellants contend that they have satisfactorily explained the delay and as such, the delay ought to be condoned.