STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KRISHAN CHAND SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to condone delay of 514 days in filing LPA No.633 of 2014. To condone delay, following explanation has been submitted: -

(2.) IT is only stated that appeal could not be filed in time as the time was consumed in taking administrative approval to file the same. As per facts on record, judgment under challenge was passed on 3.10.2012. Certified copy of the same was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana on 25.10.2012 i.e. within a period of 22 days. Thereafter it is only submitted that the competent authority then took decision to file an appeal. Matter was sent to the Legal Remembrancer Haryana for necessary sanction. Sanction was granted by the Legal Remembrancer Haryana vide letter dated 2.9.2013 and thereafter another letter was sent by the Legal Remembrancer Haryana on 24.9.2013. For a period of about one year, no explanation has been given. Why delay was caused, who was dealing with the file, how much time was taken by the competent authority and then by the office of Legal Remembrancer to clear the file, nothing is stated in this application. Not only as above, it is further stated that matter remained under consideration of the Audit Cell, Legal Cell and field offices and finally Principal Secretary Secondary Education vide order dated 12.2.2014 decided to file appeal against order dated 3.10.2012. It is very surprising that once decision was taken by the competent authority, affirmed by the Legal Remembrancer and directions were issued to the Advocate General's office to file appeal on 24.9.2013, why it was further delayed. There is nothing on record to indicate as to why the matter was sent to the Audit Cell, Legal Cell and field offices thereafter and under what circumstances, Principal Secretary took about five months to clear that file. Nothing is stated in this application. Application has been filed in a very casual manner without giving any further explanation for each days delay. As to how it was caused and what were the reasons for the same nothing is mentioned.

(3.) IN another case, it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that same yard -sticks be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay, filed by the private individuals and the State. In Amalendu Kumar Bera and others vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -