STATE OF J&P Vs. MUSADIQ FAYAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of J &K, through Commissioner Secretary to Government, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, has filed an application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 325 days in filing the Appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the appellant No.2 came to know about the judgement dated 07th of April, 2016 of this Court, passed in Contempt No. 51/2014 only on 17th of September, 2016. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after receipt of the copy of the order/judgement, immediate steps were taken to take further action in the matter and in the process, appellants were required to collect the records from the subordinate offices. The material 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 General Administration Department, for its views. Thereafter opinion from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, was sought. Obviously the examination of the matter and consideration of the question of filing of Appeal at various levels led to consumption of time.

(2.) The applicant has proceeded to state further that there was a delay of some months caused due to the administrative exigencies. It has further been stated that the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, accorded sanction for filing of LPA vide its letter No. LD(Lit)2012/95-GAD dated 10th March, 2017. After the receipt of the sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, learned AAG, swung into action and immediately called the record of the case and other documents from the Appellant, i.e. State of J &K. It has further been pleaded that the Appeal has an important bearing as far as the interests of the Appellant are concerned and in case the delay in filing the Appeal is not condoned, it will cause great prejudice to the State. 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. The application is buttressed with an affidavit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has resisted and controverted the application of the Appellant, chiefly on the ground that although the appellant has stated that the judgement was perused at different levels and the same was referred to the Law Department that directed the filing of appeal, yet there is nothing to state as to when the appellant was advised to file the Appeal. The application being cryptic and there being no ground, much less a sufficient one, for the Condonation of Delay, the application is liable to be dismissed.