STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DINESH KUMAR PARASAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the prescribed period of limitation for filing appeal against judgment passed by Single Bench is 60 days but present appeal has been filed with delay of 389 days. Application No. 268/2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The application merely states that after obtaining certified copy of judgment dated 16.11.2017, the matter was referred to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. The matter was considered by the competent authority for further legal action. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner vide order dated 18.07.2019 appointed District Education Officer, Secondary, Dausa as officer in charge to file special. The Officer in charge vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the then Additional Advocate General for filing appeal. However, after change of the Government Lawyers, the Officer in charge vide letter dated 22.01.2019 requested newly appointed Additional Advocate General for filing appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was drafted and filed before this Court without further delay. Thus, this process has taken some time resulting into the delay in filing of the appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted that the application filed by the appellants hardly states any reason, much less sufficient cause, to explain why the appellants were deprived from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of 60 days. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Others Vs. Living Media India Limited & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case held that law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Absence of diligence by Department in prosecuting matter established by evidence on record. In spite of another opportunity for filing "better affidavit" being granted to appellant Department, no explanation offered as to why application for procuring certified copy of impugned judgment was not filed within prescribed period but was done only after about four months in that case. It was further held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape. In that case, delay of 427 days was not condoned and the case was dismissed.

(3.) Even though we find that in the present case delay is not as enormous as 427 days but still it is of 389 days. The explanation which the appellants have furnished in the application for condonation of delay is not very specific and categorical with reference to the dates but nevertheless it has been stated that after obtaining certified copy of judgment dated 16.11.2017, the matter was referred to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. The matter was considered by the competent authority for further legal action. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner vide order dated 18.07.2019 appointed District Education Officer, Secondary, Dausa as officer in charge to file special. The Officer in charge vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the then Additional Advocate General for filing appeal. However, after change of the Government Lawyers, the Officer in charge vide letter dated 22.01.2019 requested newly appointed Additional Advocate General for filing appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was drafted and filed before this Court without further delay.