Callous & Lackadaisical Attitude Of State Machinery: SC Directs States To Penalise Officers Responsible For Delays To Loss Caused To Government
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Madya Pradesh to penalise the officers responsible for any “delay, deviation, lapses” to the value of the loss caused to the Government after observing the callous and lackadaisical attitude of the officials in a condonation of delay case.
The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to dismiss a Second Appeal due to an inordinate delay of 1,788 days. The Bench imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the State, citing a lack of sufficient cause for the delay and the misuse of its time.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan directed “the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of 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. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously.”
Deputy Advocate General Harmeet Singh Ruprah represented the Petitioner.
The Trial Court dismissed the Respondent's suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision in favour of the Respondent. Despite receiving communication of the judgment, the State took no immediate action. A delay of over three years occurred before permission to file an appeal was granted. Subsequently, the Second Appeal was filed accompanied by an application for condonation of the 1,788-day delay. The High Court, however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly refused to condone the delay by dismissing the Appeal after observing that such an inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily by the State.
The Bench stated that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, and sufficient cause cannot be liberally construed in cases involving inaction or negligence.
“At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer,” the Court remarked.
The Bench explained that if the period of limitation in a case 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 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 clarified.
Consequently, the Court imposed costs on the State and held, “We have deemed it necessary to impose costs to send a stern message that the States must not misuse the Supreme Court’s time by filing appeals against the well-reasoned and conscious decisions rendered by the High Courts without proper grounds.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.
Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 932)
