1999 JTR(SC) 308
1999 AIR(SCW) 4813 ; 1999 9 JT 375 ; 2000 2 LLJ 1477 ; 1999 4 LLN 68 ; 1999 6 SCC 67 ; 2000 2 SCT 18 ; 1999 7 SLR 310 ; 1999 KHC 3937 ; 1999 10 Supreme 472
1999(10) Supreme 472
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Chief General Manager, Telecom & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
G. Mohan Prasad & Ors. -Respondents
SLP (C) Nos. 1385-86 of 1998
Decided on 12-3-1999
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
(A) The referenced provisions of the Constitution of India, including Article 136 and Article 226, establish the framework for appellate and jurisdictional review by the Supreme Court, enabling the Court to exercise discretion in matters involving substantial questions of law and procedural irregularities. In this case, these constitutional provisions empower the Court to address the issue of condonation of delay and to ensure that the rights arising from tribunal orders are not unfairly prejudiced by procedural lapses, while also allowing for judicial discretion to balance administrative efficiency and fairness. The Courts authority under these articles is particularly relevant when intervening in disputes concerning government servants and pecuniary benefits, as it seeks to prevent unwarranted financial encumbrance on the exchequer due to delays.
(B) The core legal principles include the discretionary power of the court to condone delays depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the burden on the exchequer when government servants receive unauthorized benefits, and the procedural requirement to address merits even when limitation issues arise. The case also highlights the courts expectation that requests for procedural relief, such as adjournments for want of records, should be raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Facts of the case:
The respondent challenged the delay of 195 days in disposing of their claim, arguing that no explanation was offered by the Union of India for condoning such delay. The Court noted that a similar delay of 149 days in a prior case had not been condoned. The respondent also indicated that they were handicapped during the hearing as the relevant rules were not available, leading to an adjournment for merits.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the delay of 195 days was gross but concluded, in the context of the specific facts and the earlier indication that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage, that condoning the delay was appropriate to avoid prejudice. The Court also observed that the respondents inability to produce rules should not attract penalty, given the procedural context.
Issues:
Whether the delay of 195 days should be condoned in the absence of an explanation from the Union of India, and whether the respondent should be penalized for the lack of rules when addressing merits after the limitation phase.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Courts discretion to condone delay hinges on the circumstances of each case, particularly where pecuniary benefits not rightfully accruing to the government are at stake and where prior indications by the Court suggest disposal at the notice stage. The Court also emphasized that procedural defaults by the respondent should not be penalized if the records are subsequently made available for a fair hearing.
Result:
The delay of 195 days was condoned, and the matter was adjourned to the next Friday for a hearing on the merits, with the Court declining to penalize the respondent for the lack of rules.
(A) The referenced provisions of the Constitution of India, including Article 136 and Article 226, establish the framework for appellate and jurisdictional review by the Supreme Court, enabling the Court to exercise discretion in matters involving substantial questions of law and procedural irregularities. In this case, these constitutional provisions empower the Court to address the issue of condonation of delay and to ensure that the rights arising from tribunal orders are not unfairly prejudiced by procedural lapses, while also allowing for judicial discretion to balance administrative efficiency and fairness. The Courts authority under these articles is particularly relevant when intervening in disputes concerning government servants and pecuniary benefits, as it seeks to prevent unwarranted financial encumbrance on the exchequer due to delays.
(B) The core legal principles include the discretionary power of the court to condone delays depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the burden on the exchequer when government servants receive unauthorized benefits, and the procedural requirement to address merits even when limitation issues arise. The case also highlights the courts expectation that requests for procedural relief, such as adjournments for want of records, should be raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Facts of the case:
The respondent challenged the delay of 195 days in disposing of their claim, arguing that no explanation was offered by the Union of India for condoning such delay. The Court noted that a similar delay of 149 days in a prior case had not been condoned. The respondent also indicated that they were handicapped during the hearing as the relevant rules were not available, leading to an adjournment for merits.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the delay of 195 days was gross but concluded, in the context of the specific facts and the earlier indication that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage, that condoning the delay was appropriate to avoid prejudice. The Court also observed that the respondents inability to produce rules should not attract penalty, given the procedural context.
Issues:
Whether the delay of 195 days should be condoned in the absence of an explanation from the Union of India, and whether the respondent should be penalized for the lack of rules when addressing merits after the limitation phase.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Courts discretion to condone delay hinges on the circumstances of each case, particularly where pecuniary benefits not rightfully accruing to the government are at stake and where prior indications by the Court suggest disposal at the notice stage. The Court also emphasized that procedural defaults by the respondent should not be penalized if the records are subsequently made available for a fair hearing.
Result:
The delay of 195 days was condoned, and the matter was adjourned to the next Friday for a hearing on the merits, with the Court declining to penalize the respondent for the lack of rules.
ORDER
1. Notice had been issued in this case both on the question of condonation of delay of 195 days as well as on merits indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage itself in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. R. Swaminathan1.
2. Today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that there has been no explanation offered on behalf of the Union of India for condoning the gross delay of 195 days and, therefore, the rights of the respondent accrued pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal2 where a delay of 149 days had not been condoned by this Court. The question of condonation of delay is a discretion of the court depending upon the circumstances of each case. If a government servant has been conferred certain pecuniary benefits which he is not otherwise entitled to under the rules, non-interference with such an order is a burden on the exchequer and, in view of the aforesaid three-Judge Bench of this Court, while issuing notice itself, the Court had indicated that the matter would be disposed of at the admission stage.
3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the delay should be condoned and we, accordingly, condone the delay.
4. When we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to address us on merits, the learned counsel says that he is handicapped as certain provisions of the rules are not with him. We expect, this prayer could have been made at the very beginning of the hearing of the case and not at the end of the hearing on the question of limitation, but since the counsel says that he is handicapped because the rules are not with him, we do not want to penalise the respondent on that score. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to next Friday, i.e., 19.3.1999, for hearing on merits.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
************