STATE OF JK Vs. NAHEED SOZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) has filed this application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 271 days in filing the appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that after the receipt of the copy of the Judgement dated 6 th of August, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein/ Writ Petitioner (SWP No.96/2011), the same was scanned at various levels to derive satisfaction on the count whether or not the appeal is to be filed. After going through the entire record of the case, the matter was referred to the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for its views and the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, opined that an appeal be filed against the impugned order/judgement.

(2.) Mr Sajjad Ashraf Mir, the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submitted that the delay that has occasioned in the filing of the appeal is primarily due to administrative exigencies. It is further submitted that the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, accorded sanction for filing of LPA vide its letter dated 25th of April, 2019 and that after the receipt of the sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, the then Senior Additional Advocate General appointed to file the LPA, swung into action and, immediately, called the record of the case and other documents from the applicants. It is pleaded that the appeal has an important bearing as far as the interests of the applicants are concerned and in case the delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, it will cause great prejudice to the applicants. It has further been averred that the settled position of law is that since the decisions at the Government level are taken at a slow pace, therefore, some amount of latitude has to be given to it and the Government cannot be equated and treated on par with the private parties in the matter of condonation of delay.

(3.) Mr Shuja-ul-Haq Tantray, the learned Counsel representing the Respondent No.1 herein/ Writ Petitioner, submitted that the application filed by the applicants is cryptic inasmuch as no ground, much less a sufficient one, has been projected therein for the Condonation of Delay, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that in view of the Judgement dated 6 th of August, 2018, the applicants/ Respondents before the Writ Court were supposed to accord fresh consideration to the case of the Respondent No.1 herein/ Writ Petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment as also taking into consideration the number of years of the service that she has rendered in the IMPA as expeditiously as possible and pass requisite orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said Judgment. It is pleaded that the applicants did not do so and slept over the matter for a long time.