UNION OF INDIA Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT jurisdiction of this court came to be invoked by the writ petitioner respondent herein seeking a mandamus to command the respondents -appellants herein to release disability pension in his favour. Petition was allowed in the year 1999 by the learned single judge. The appellant did not challenge the judgment for about more than seven months and in the process it became barred by limitation. What transpires from the application is that the applicants applied for certified copy of the judgment after a delay of five days. It was ready to be issued on 15.12.1999 but was received on 16.12.1999. The application for condonation of delay accompanied by appeal was filed on 18.7.2000.

(2.) WE have perused the averments made in the application. Main thrust of the applicant is on the contention that the judgment was sent for opinion to the Law Department but on which date there is no mention, it is also stated that instructions were received on 27th of May, 2000 to file the appeal. Why it was not filed till 18 -7.2000 again explanation is wanting. That apart it is specifically pleaded by the respondent in his objections filed in opposition to this application that the judgment has since been implemented and the pensionary benefits released in his favour whichever flow to him on the strength of the judgment. Faced with the contention learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that its implementation will not debar him from challenging the judgment. This argument needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that it is a case where delay is sought to be condoned by exercise of discretionary power of the court which is available to it under the provisions of law of limitation. The fact that the appellant -applicant has approached the court after implementation of the judgment furnishes a tenable presumption that delay in approaching the court is deliberate and dilatory in character. Thus the court has to lean against the acceptance of the application as otherwise there will be unending uncertainty amounting to infraction of law of limitation. In addition to that it may be apt to say that because of absence of reasonable and satisfactory explanation, the application merits dismissal.

(3.) IN the aforementioned backdrop, we find this application without any merit. It is dismissed.