Inordinate Delay in filing Revisions/Appeals by Government not to be condoned henceforth
It is common that there is inordinate delay in
filing Revisions/Appeals by
the various functionaries of the Government. The Government functionaries have
been harbouring a wrong notion that condonation of delay is a matter of course
and in seeking such condonation the State can claim preferential or special
treatment. It is true that Courts have always being taking a broad and liberal
view so as to advance substantial justice instead of terminating a proceeding
on a technical ground like limitation. However, recently the Apex Court has considered this anomaly and ruled that red tapism within
the department, slow movement of files, impersonal machinery, bureaucratic
methodology in making decisions are no longer acceptable as ‘Sufficient Cause’ for condonation
of delay. The Apex Court has ruled that negligence of the State cannot be
rewarded by mechanically condoning the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The
Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 563 held thus:
“ It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a
special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are
posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because
the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are
conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was
no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view
that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted
in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
In our view, it is the
right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation
for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the
usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform
their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government
departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few.” (Emphasis supplied)
In a recent case of Amalendu Kumar
Bera v. State of West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC 52, the Apex Court once again dealt strictly with
this issue and held thus:
“ True it is, that
courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of
delay, particularly when the appellant is the State but in a case where there
are serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the
decree passed in the suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be allowed
to wait to file objection under Section 47 till the decreeholder puts the
decree in execution. … Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in
filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically
considered and in the absence of “sufficient cause” delay shall not be
condoned.” (Emphasis supplied)
It would be trite to refer to the case of Union of India vs Nripen Sharma AIR 2011 SC 1237 on
the issue of inordinate delay. The Apex Court held thus:
“We have also gone
through the condonation of delay application which was filed in the High Court.
In our considered view, the High Court was fully justified in
dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay because no sufficient cause was
shown for condoning the delay.
The appellant has
preferred this appeal against the final judgment dated 10.09.2007
before this Court. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 114 days. There
is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay before this Court also.
The Union of India
ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the
Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on
the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority
of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation
and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing
those cases.
On consideration of
the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this
appeal on the ground of delay.” (Emphasis supplied)
In cases of Trade Tax/Vat, there is a common
practice of Delay in filing Revisions against the orders of the Tribunals. The
delay in filing Revision in the Allahabad High Court against the order of the
Tribunal in the case of S/S Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd., a leading case for
imposition of Works Contract Tax, was delayed by more than 14 months for
reasons not known. The agony is that the advocates of the assessees do not
fight the
application for condonation of
delay vehemently in the court. Probably, they too have the same misconception that the Courts
would mechanically condone the delay of the State functionaries.
There can be no plausible, satisfactory and
appealing explanation of inordinate delays by the Government Functionaries in
filing of Revision/Appeals before the Courts. With the aforementioned
precedents of the Apex Court, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution,
when placed before the Court, it would not be easy henceforth for the
Government Departments to get their inordinate delays condoned u/s 5 of the
Limitation Act.
Source: Taxation sites
Comments
Post a Comment