caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal on 15 October, 2020Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) DIARY NO.9217 OF 2020
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BHERULAL Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
IA No.62372/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
1. The Special Leave Petition has been filed with a
delay of 663 days! The explanation given in the
application for condonation of delay is set out in
paragraphs 3 and 4.
2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as
it appears that all our counseling to Government and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2020.10.16 Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the
20:45:32 IST
Reason:
Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the
2
Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the
period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue
that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and
incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the
solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand
the time period for filing limitation for Government
authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is
not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions
have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed.
3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government
inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities
keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of
time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway
was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107).
This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of
this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General &
Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563
where the Court observed as under:
“12) 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
3
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 bonafide, 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.
13) 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 bonafide effort, there is no
need to accept the usual explanation that the
file was kept pending for several months/years
4
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 government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering
the fact that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the delay except
mentioning of various dates, according to us,
the Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
condone such a huge delay.”
Eight years hence the judgment is still
unheeded!
4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that
the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be
only “due to unavailability of the documents and the
process of arranging the documents”. In paragraph 4 a
reference has been made to “bureaucratic process works, it
is inadvertent that delay occurs”.
5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be
propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the
5
period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is
good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really
a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases.
This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of
the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach
is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as
“certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a
certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a
quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be
done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal.
It is to complete this formality and save the skin of
officers who may be at default that such a process is
followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly
deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be
no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is
not to obtain such certificates and if the Government
suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer
responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony
is that in none of the cases any action is taken against
the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is
presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even
in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to
6
address on merits without referring even to the aspect of
limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to
the counsel that he must first address us on the question
of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we
propose to do in all matters today, where there are such
inordinate delays that the Government or State
authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of
judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be
recovered from the officers responsible.
8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual
manner in which the application has been worded, we
consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner-
State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be
deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project
Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The
amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the
delay in filing the special leave petition and a
certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed
in this Court within the said period of time.
9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time
barred in terms aforesaid.
7
10. We make it clear that if the aforesaid order is not
complied within time, we will be constrained to initiate
contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary.
11. A copy of the order be placed before the Chief
Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh.
………………..J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
………………..J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
October 15, 2020.
Comments