1992 JTR(SC) 831
1995 Supp4 SCC 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah : N.P.Singh
State Of U.P.
Versus
Vinodprakashtayal
Case No. : 15439 of 1992
Date of Decision : 11/16/92
Advocates Appeared: Chauhan B.S. : Gupta Rachna : Mishra R.B. : Prasad Yogeshar : Singh Vishwajit
Inordinate delay in filing a petition cannot be condoned based on unsatisfactory explanations of interdepartmental correspondence, as the time taken for such deliberations must be sensible and reasonable, particularly when government inaction prejudices public interest.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.136
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
(A) Condonation of Delay - Special Leave Petition - Delay of 149 days - Explanation based on interdepartmental correspondence - Time taken for such deliberations must be sensible and reasonable - Mere reliance on internal correspondence cannot justify inordinate delay, especially when public interest suffers due to inaction of officers. (Paras 1 and 2)
(B) Writ Petition - Dismissal based on inaction in other cases - Where statute makes acts offences under the law, the view that inaction in other cases bars initiation of action against respondents is eminently arguable and potentially unjustified. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by the State against an order of the prescribed authority, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that inaction in other cases barred action against the respondents. A special leave petition was subsequently filed with a delay of 149 days, with the petitioner citing interdepartmental correspondence as the reason for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The explanation for the delay of 149 days was found to be wholly unsatisfactory as the time taken for internal deliberations was neither sensible nor reasonable.
Issues: Whether the delay of 149 days in filing the special leave petition could be condoned based on the explanation of interdepartmental correspondence.
Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay cannot be condoned merely on the basis of interdepartmental correspondence if the time taken for such deliberations is not sensible and reasonable, particularly when inaction by government officers harms public interest.
Result: I.A. for condonation of delay dismissed; Special Leave Petition dismissed as barred by time.
(B) Writ Petition - Dismissal based on inaction in other cases - Where statute makes acts offences under the law, the view that inaction in other cases bars initiation of action against respondents is eminently arguable and potentially unjustified. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by the State against an order of the prescribed authority, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that inaction in other cases barred action against the respondents. A special leave petition was subsequently filed with a delay of 149 days, with the petitioner citing interdepartmental correspondence as the reason for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The explanation for the delay of 149 days was found to be wholly unsatisfactory as the time taken for internal deliberations was neither sensible nor reasonable.
Issues: Whether the delay of 149 days in filing the special leave petition could be condoned based on the explanation of interdepartmental correspondence.
Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay cannot be condoned merely on the basis of interdepartmental correspondence if the time taken for such deliberations is not sensible and reasonable, particularly when inaction by government officers harms public interest.
Result: I.A. for condonation of delay dismissed; Special Leave Petition dismissed as barred by time.
B.S.Chauhan, R.B.MISHRA, RACHNA GUPTA, VISHVAJIT SINGH, YOGESHAR PRASAD
(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveator. The points urged by the learned counsel on the merits of the view taken by the High court is eminently arguable. We are afraid the High court was perhaps not justified in its view that inaction in other cases would bar initiation of action against the respondents particularly when the statute makes these acts offences under the law. The dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the State against the order of the prescribed authority is vulnerable both in the reasoning as well as in the conclusion reached. However, there is one impediment in entertaining this special leave petition. There is delay of 149 days, the explanation for which is wholly unsatisfactory. The mere reliance on interdepartment correspondence cannot advance the petitioners case for the condonation of this inordinate delay. The time taken for such deliberations must be sensible and reasonable. In this case, it is neither.
(2) WE find it difficult to condone this inordinate delay of 149 days. The State government shall sit up and take note of such lapses on the part of its officers which will harm public interests. No officer loses personally when appeals of government are lost for delay. But there are cases, as here, where public interest suffers on account of such inaction.
(3) WE dismiss I.A. for condonation of delay. Consequently, Special Leave Petition is dismissed as barred by time. court Masters