DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. I S NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order would dispose of application for condonation of delay. The material dates are; the District Forum-II rendered its order on 4.5.94. Certified copy of the order was received by the DDA, appellant, by post on 13.7.94, The appeal was filed on 28.9.94 alongwith application for condonation of delay. Better particulars in regard to this application were furnished later. Reply to the application has been filed. According to the appellant decision to file the appeal was taken on 9.8.94 and the file was sent to the Lawyer to do the needful on 12.8.94. There were public holidays from 13 to 15th August '94. The appellant furnished better particular with regard to the delay from 16,8.94 to 27.9.94. In the better particulars it was stated that there was strike in Tis Hazari Courts and the appellant's Counsel could not get the grounds of appeal typed whereafter grounds of appeals were sent and the same were signed by the Competent Authority and ultimately the appeal was filed.

(2.) In the reply it has been vehemently stated that there was no strike in Tis Hazari Courts for the period alleged in the application

(3.) The contention of Mr. S. C. Varshney is that sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been made out. In case delay was not condoned, no particular individual would suffer but the public interest in general would be adversely affected. He further submitted that decisions taken in the Government department were proverbially slow and a certain amount of latitude deserves to be given. He placed reliance on Collector of Land Acquisition V/s. Katiji, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353, G. Ramegowda V/s. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1988 AIR(SC) 897and a recent decision of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Union of India V/s. R. P. Builders, 1994 RLR 460.