Leeway Given To Govt Authorities On Delay Was On Account Of Judgments Passed When Technology Had Not Advanced: SC Refuses To Condone Delay In SLP By MP Govt, Imposes ₹10000 Cost

The plea challenging an impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was filed by the State School Education Department after a delay of 283 days in filing and 121 days in refiling the special leave petition against an order dismissing a Writ Appeal filed after delay of 994 days. On this, the bench in the order remarked, “…so much for the efficiency of the department!”.

Consequentially, while relying on the judgment in Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, “…The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court...”.

“We have categorized all such cases as ‘certificate cases’. The objective is to see that the department washes its hands off for its non-performance to obtain dismissal from this Court”, the bench further noted in the order.

A.A.G. Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the petitioner.

The bench then looking into the delay in filing not only before the High Court but also before it, dismissed the special leave petition as time barred with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association.

It is pertinent to note that in the judgment relied upon by the bench (Living Media India Ltd’s case), a bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J. Chelameswar had held that unless the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there was 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 bench in that matter had further noted that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments, and that the law should not be changed for the benefit of a few. The Court had then observed that the Department had miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

“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”, the Court had said in the 2012 judgment.

Cause Title: School Education Department & Ors. v Sarita Mishra & Anr.