SC directs all States to penalise officers responsible for delay in filling of appeals causing huge loss to Government exchequer

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition (civil) against the judgment rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State on the ground that it was filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced for the same, the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. dismissed the petition following the settled law that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute and that the State did not give ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay.

The Court also directed the States to follow the direction scrupulously as to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing cases before the Tribunal, Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government.

Background

The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question, on the basis that possession of the said lands since 1970 was with him and has been given leasehold right by the Settlement Officer in the year 1989 however, the first Appellate Court reversed the same and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent, thereby affecting the State’s right in respect of the said lands. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, wherein, valuable Government lands measuring a total extent of 1,300 Hectare situated at Village Majhganwa, Tehsil and District Katni, were involved. The State submitted that the delay caused in filing the second appeal was well explained by the State and the same was not intentional.

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted the evident enormous delay which occurred at every stage i.e., from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court to the date of filing the second appeal by the State. The judgement was passed by the First Appellate Court on 21-08-2014 and the same was communicated by the Government Advocate for State to the Collector, only on 25-08-2015 i.e., after a delay of one year. Causing 3-month delay, by letter dated 10-12-2015, the Collector informed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, about the passing of the judgment against the State and preferred a second appeal against the same. Thereafter, the Law Department took three years and gave permission for filing an appeal on 26-10-2018, which was sent to the Collector on 31-10-2018. Based on the said opinion, after preparation of the appeal papers, the State filed the second appeal only on 18-10-2019. The Court said that there was inordinate delay of 1788 days in preferring the second appeal, but the same was not properly explained by the State.

Discussing the legal position on the explanation for the delay in appeal, the Court reiterated that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain to the Court the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. The Court relied on Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, (2021) 18 SCC 384, wherein, it was held that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.

Referring to Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92, the Court reiterated that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

Upon application of the settled law to the matter at hand, the Court opined that the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State. Therefore, the Court rejected the petition at the threshold with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the State within a period of two weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and file proof thereof. If the said amount is not deposited by the State, the Registry shall take necessary steps for recovery of the same, in accordance with law.

Further, the Court refused to simply brush aside the delay that occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to the callous and lackadaisical attitude of the officials functioning in the State machinery. The present case is one such case wherein, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss has been caused to the Government exchequer and an enormous delay of 1788 days in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, the Court directed the State follow the direction to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing cases before the Tribunal, Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. The Court directed that such direction shall be followed by all the States scrupulously.

The Court illustrated that if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The Court explained that the for a is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. Further, the Court added that ‘sufficient cause’ must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired, it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.