STATE OF HARYANA Vs. WAZIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 31/7/1999, Additional District Judge, Hisar refused to condone delay in filing the appeal by the State of Haryana and dismissed their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Vide another order of the same day, he went into the merits of the appeal and dismissed it on merits. State of Haryana has come up in revision to this Court against the refusal to condone delay and the dismissal of appeal on merits by the Additional District Judge, Hisar.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submits that when Additional District Judge, Hisar had dismissed the application of the State of Haryana filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condoning delay, Additional District Judge became functus officio and he could not have touched merits of the appeal at all. He submits that dismissal of the appeal by Additional District Judge on merits is without jurisdiction and is non est. I think, the submission made by learned Additional A.G., Haryana is correct. After the Additional District Judge had refused to condone delay, all that he could have done was to say that in consequence of the prayer of the State of Haryana for condoning delay having been declined, the appeal is dismissed.

(3.) Appeal was filed by the State of Haryana after delay of 27 days. In support of the prayer for condoning delay, State of Haryana has alleged that Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide order dated 30.12.1998 had instructed District Attorney to file appeal and the District Attorney had vide order dated 12.1.1999 asked the Divisional Forest Officer, Hisar to send certified copy of the judgment and decree. Appeal was filed on 25.1.1999 and 13 days' time was taken after 12.1.1999. Learned Additional A.G., Haryana submits that some time is taken in sending the case through various functionaries of the State and therefore, delay in filing the appeal is caused. He submits that the decision that appeal be filed is not to be taken by an individual. It is taken after the matter passes through several hands. If decision to file appeal is to be taken by an individual, there can be no delay but if the decision to file the appeal is taken after the matter passes through several hands, some delay is likely to take place and that delay should be condoned and if that delay is not condoned, public interest will suffer. It was held in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.. that "the doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay In fact on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbibed with the note-making, file pushing, and passing on the buck ethos, delay on part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. So also the approach of the Courts must be to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits". It is true that the State is like any other litigant. If the State is like any other litigant, State cannot be given preferential treatment. Every litigant whether it be State or an individual deserves the same treatment. For determining whether there is sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond limitation, the same yardstick should not apply to the State which yardstick is applied to the case of any other individual as when appeal is to be filed by the State, the decision to file the appeal is not taken by an individual at his own level. Decision to file an appeal is taken after the matter passes through several hands. When the matter passes through several hands. we cannot lose sight of the fact that some delay may take place at the level of one or the other official. It was held in Punjab State & Anr. v Kultar Chand. that