STATE OF J&K Vs. RATTAN LAL GANJOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the State, for condoning the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of learned Single Judge (Honble Dr. A. S. Anand, Chief Justice) passed on 1 -11 -1985 in Writ Petition No 291 of 1982 -Rattan Lal Ganjoo and others Versus State. It is averred in the application that delay in filing the appeal was due to administrative and procedural reasons as decision regarding filing of the appeal bad to be taken, by the Government after consulting various departments involved in it, It is further stated in the application that the decision was delayed because of such procedural bottle -necks. The matter was honestly pursued on various levels but the delay could not be avoided Finally when the Govt decided to file letter -Patent Appeal on 11 -4 -1986, the concerned department was contacts] and the the appeal was prepared on 12 4 -S986 bat by that time working hours of the court were over and the appeal was the filed on 14 4 -1986, as April 13, 1986, was a public holiday on account of "Baisakhi." Mr. Bhagotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not like to file objections as, according to him, the grounds submitted by the appellant for condonation of delay were insufficient to grant such prayer" of

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties in regard to this application for condonation of delay. The period of limitation provided for filing the letters Patent appeal is 60 days. The judgment was delivered on 1 -11 -1985. The period of limitation thus expired on 31 -12 -1986. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 14 -4 -1986,i.e., after four months and 13 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The only ground taken and the cause shown by the appellant for seeking condonation of delay is the administrative and procedural reasons. According to learned counselâ„¢ appearing for the appellant -state various departments were required to be consulted before taking decision for filing appeal, such fact was discussed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Versus Bacchala Balaiah -AlR 1985 A. P. 1952 and it was held that the inter department correspondence or condition would not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay Same view was expressed by the Patna High Court in case State of Bihar Versus Dhajadhari Roy -AIR 1985 Patna 185 -wherein it was held that if the courts were !o accept mere procedure of the working in the Government offices as sufficient came for the delay in filing, of the appeal, then the delay would have to be condoned in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the appeal would for the State Government become a misnomer end the delay in filing the appeal by the Government was not condoned -

(3.) IN the present case, the impugned judgment was delivered on 1 -11 -1985 in presence of counsel for the parties. The record shows that the state Govt. agency applied for copy of the said judgment on i -1 -1986 and the copy was delivered on 22 -1 -1986 even though it had been prepared on 16 -1 -1986, It shows that the appellant applied for copy of the judgment after the expiry of period of limitation which had expired on 31 -12 -S986. This circumstance also goes against the State -appellant indicating no interest in pursuing the matter for filing of the appeal. The correspondence or consultation between different departments, as alleged in the application, cannot be construed a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay when the law has provided sufficient period to complete all such formalities. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the State appellant -Petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and as such this application is dismissed. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1986 filed with this application, shall also stand dismissed as barred by time.