OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS.versusLIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. & ANR.

                   [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1045


 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL &                      A
                    ORS.
                              v.
             LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. & ANR.
           (Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012)

                   FEBRUARY 24, 2012
                                                                 B

    [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

      APPEAL: Appeal by Government Department - Delay in
filing - Condonation of - Delay of 427 days in filing SLPs by C
the Government Department - Held: The law of limitation
binds everybody including the Government - The
Government Departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment - Condonation of delay is an exception and D
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government
Departments - In the instant case, the certified copy of the
impugned judgment was applied by the Department after a
period of nearly four months - There was no explanation for
not applying for certified copy within reasonable time - There E
was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of
receipt of the file and the decision taken, there was no
explanation as to why such delay had occasioned - The
persons concerned were well conversant with the issues
involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking
                                                                  F
up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition - The
claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modem technologies being used and
 available -Considering the fact that· there was no proper G
 explanation offered by the Department for the delay except
 mentioning of various dates, the Department miserably failed
 to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
 condone such a huge delay.
                             1045                                H
    1046    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A     Respondent no.1 was aggrieved by the decision of
  the appellant-Postal Department regarding the denial of
  concessional rate of postage on certain issue of the
  magazine. Respondent no.1 filed writ petitions before the
  Hi~h Court. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The
B special leave petitions (SLPs) were filed challenging the
  order of the High Court.

       The respondents raised objection on the conduct of
  the appellants in approaching the Supreme Court after
C enormous and inordinate delay of 427 days in filing these
  SLPs. In view of the fact that the application for
  condonation of delay in filing the SLPs did not contain
  acceptable and plausible reasons, the Supreme Court
  permitted the appellant-Postal Department to file a "better
  affidavit" explaining the reasons for the same. Pursuant
D to the same, an affidavit was filed on 26.12.2011. It was
  contended for the appellant that it being a Government
  Department, delay be condoned and an opportunity be
  given to put-forth their stand as to the impugned
  judgment of the High Court.
E
       Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. In the "better affidavit" sworn by 'AP',
  SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, the Department has itself
  mentioned and is aware of the date of the impugned
F judgment of the High Court as 11.09.2009. Even
  according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for
  the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010
  and the same was received by the Department on the
  very same day. There is no explanation for not applying
G for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009
  or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that
  the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after
  a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording
  another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing
H
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1047
          v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.
adequate material, neither the Department nor the person     A
in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the
certified copy within the prescribed period. The other
dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly show that there
was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates
of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no   B
explanation as to why such delay had occasioned.
Though it was stated by the Department that the delay
was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine
difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the
Department or the person/persons concerned have riot         c
evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court
by taking appropriate steps. [Para 11] [1063-E-G; 1064-A-
C]
      2. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned
 were well aware or conversant with the issues involved D
 including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up
 the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this
 Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate
 period of limitation when the Department was possessed
 with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. E
 In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation,
there is no reason why the delay is to be condoned
mechanically merely because the Government or a wing
of the Government is a party before this Court. Though
in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no F
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of
bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on account of G
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. It is the right time H
to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and
    1048   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and
  acceptable explanation for the delay and there was
  bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual
  explanation that the file was kept pending for several ·
  months/years due to considerable degree of procedural
B red-tape in the process. The government departments
  are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform
  their duties with diligence and commitment.
  Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be
  used as an anticipated benefit for government
c departments. The law shelters everyone under the same
  light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
  Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation
  offered by the Department for the delay except
  mentioning of various dates, the Department has
  miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent
0
  reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. [Paras
  12-13] [1064-D-H; 1065-A-D]
       Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs.
  Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 (2) SCR
E 387; G. Ramegowda, Major and Others vs. Special Land
  Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142 : 1988 (3)
  SCR 198; State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and Others,
  (1996) 3 sec 132: 1996 (1) SCR 1060; State' of U.P. and
  Others vs. Harish Chandra and Others, (1996) 9 SCC 309:
F 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 260; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
  Giga Ram and Others, (2002) 10 SCC 176; State of Nagaland
  vs. Lipok Ao and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 (3) SCR
  108; Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur
  Riders Club, Bombay, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 603; Pundlik
G Ja/am Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive Engineer, Ja/gaon
  Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448 - referred
  to.
                       Case Law Reference:
       1987 (2) SCR 387            referred to   Para 7(i)
H
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1049
          v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD.
     1988 (3) SCR 198               referred to    Para 7(ii)     A

      1996 (1) SCR 1060             referred to    Para 7(iii)
     1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 260 referred to           Para 7(iv)
     (2002) 1o sec 176              referred to   Para 7(v)       B
     2005 (3) SCR 108              referred to    Para 7(vi)
     1994 Supp (2) sec 603         referred to    Para 10(i)

     (2008) 17 SC 448              referred to    Para 10(ii)
                                                                  c
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2474-2475 of 2012.

    H.P. Raval, ASG. Anoop G. Choudhary, Ashok K.
Srivastava, B.K. Prasad, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the
Appellants.                                                       D

     Soli J. Sorabji, Darpan Wadhwa, M.R. Shamshad, Ahmad
S.A., Jaishree Shukla for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    E
    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
    2. The following issues arise for consideration:

    a) Whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General has
    shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days    F
    in filing SLPs before this Court.

Depending on the outcome of the above issue, other issues to
be considered are:
    b) Whether the impugned advertisement inserted in the         G
    Reader's Digest issue of December, 2005 is in conformity
    with the requirement of law.

    c) Whether the Department has made out a case for
    interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India   H
    1050   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A      to reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High
       Court.

        3. These appeals have been filed against the common
  final judgment and order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High
  Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007
8
  whereby the Division Bench while upholding the judgment and
  order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned single Judge
  of the same High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 22679-80 of
  2005 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4985 of 2006 dismissed the
C appeals .filed by the appellants herein.

        4. Brief Facts:

       (a) Living Media India Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 is a
  company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which
D publishes the magazines "Reader's Digest" and "India Today".
  These magazines are registered newspapers vide Registration
  Nos. DL 11077/03-05 and DL 11021/01-05 respectively issued
  by the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Post Master
  General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi (in short 'Postal Department')-
E appellant herein under the provisions of the Indian Post Office
  Act, 1898 (in short 'the Act') read with the Indian Post Office
  Rules, 1933 (in short 'the Rules') and the Post Office Guide and
  are entitled for transmission by post under concessional rate
  of postage.

F      (b) On 14.10.2005, the Manager (Circulation), Living
  Media India Ltd., submitted an application to the Postal
  Department seeking permission to post December, 2005
  issue of Reader's Digest .magazine containing the
  advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in the form of book-
G let with Calendar for the year 2006 at concessional rates in New
  Delhi. By letter dated 08.11.2005, the Postal Department
  denied the grant of permission for mailing the said issue at
  concessional rates on the ground that the book-let containing
  advertisement with calendar is neither a supplement nor a part
H and parcel of the publication. On 17.11.2005, the Director
  OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL1051
   v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
                                       '
(Publishing), Living Media India once again submitted an          A
application seeking the same permission which was also
denied by the Postal Department by letter dated 21.11.2005.

      (c) In the same way, the Postal Department also refused
to grant concessional rate of postage to post the issue dated     B
December 26, 2005 of "India Today' magazine containing a
book-let of Amway India Enterprises titled "Amway" vide their
letters dated 18.02.2006 and 17 .03.2006 stating that the said
magazine was also not entitled to avail the benefit of
concessional rate available to registered newspapers.
                                                                  c
     (d) Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the decision of
the Postal Department filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 22679-80
of 2005 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4985 of 2006 before the High
Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
28.03.2007 allowed both the petitions filed by Respondent No.     D
1 herein.

     (e) Being aggrieved, the Postal Department filed LPA Nos.
418 and 1006 of 2007 before the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court, vide common final judgment and order     E
dated 11.09.2009, while upholding the judgment of the learned
single Judge, dismissed both the appeals. Challenging the said
order, the Postal Department has preferred these appeals by
way of special leave before this Court.

     5. Heard Mr. H. P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor       F
General for the appellants-Department of Posts and Mr. Soli
J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

Delay in filing the SLPs:
                                                                  G
    6. Since learned senior counsel for the respondents
seriously objected to the conduct of the appellants in
approaching this Court after enormous and inordinate delay of
427 days in filing the above appeals, we intend to find out
whether there is any "sufficient cause" for the condonation of
such a huge delay. In view of the fact that the application for   H
    1052        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A condonation of delay in filing the SLPs dated 10.02.2011 does
  not contain acceptable and plausible reasons, we permitted the
  appellant-Postal Department to file a better affidavit explaining
  the reasons for the same. Pursuant to the same, an affidavit
  has been filed on 26.12.2011. After taking us through the same,
B learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in view of
  series of decisions of this Court and the appellant being a
  Government Department, delay may be condoned and an
  opportunity may be given to put-forth their stand as to the
  impugned judgment of the High Court.
c        7. Before going into the reasons furnished by the
    Department for the delay, let us consider various decisions of
    this Court relied on by Mr. Raval, learned ASG.

        i) In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another
D vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, while considering
  "sufficient cause" in the light of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
  1963, this Court pointed out various principles for adopting
  liberal approach in condoning the delay in matters instituted in
  this Court. Learned ASG heavily relied on the following
E principles:-

           "1.    Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
                  lodging an appeal late.

           2.     Refusing to condone delay can result in a
F                 meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
                  threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
                  against this when delay is condoned the highest
                  that can happen is that a cause would be decided
                  on merits after hearing the parties.
G
           3.     "Every day's delay must be explained" does not
                  mean that a pedantic approach should be made.
                  Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?
                  The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
                  sense pragmatic manner.
H
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1053
  v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
      4.     When substantial justice and technical                    A
             considerations are pitted against each other, cause
             of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
             the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
             injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
             delay.                                                    B

      5.     There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
             deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence,
             or on account of mala tides. A litigant does not
             stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs   C
             a serious risk.

      6.    It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not
            on account of its power to legalize injustice on
            technical grounds but because it is capable of
            removing injustice and is expected to do so."              D

By showing the above principles, learned ASG submitted that
there is no warrant for according step-motherly treatment when
the "State" is the applicant. It is relevant to mention that in this
case, the delay was only for four days.
                                                                       E
     ii) In G. Ramegowda, Major and Others vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142, the
principle$ enunciated in paras 15 & 17 are heavily relied on
by the learned ASG. They are:-
                                                                       F
    "15. In litigations to which Government is a party there is
    yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If
    appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults,
    no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate
    analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of             G
    Government are collective and institutional decisions and
    do not share the characteristics of decisions of private
    individuals.

    17. Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case,
                                                                       H
    1054   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A      constitutes "sufficient cause" for purposes of Section 5, it
       might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from
       the considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these
       factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the
       functioning of the government. Governmental decisions are
B      proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a
       considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process
       of their making."

  Considering the peculiar facts, namely, the change of
  government pleader who had taken away the certified copy
C after he ceases to be in office, the High Court condoned the
  delay which was affirmed by this Court.

        iii) In State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and Others,
  (1996) 3 sec 132, while condoning the delay of 109 days in
D filing the LPA before the High Court, this Court has observed
  that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is
  permissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic setup
  involving red-tapism. In the same decision, this Court directed
  the State to constitute legal cells to examine whether any legal
E principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether
  cases required adjustment at governmental level.

        iv) In State of UP. and Others vs. Harish Chandra and
    Others, (1996) 9 sec 309, by giving similar reasons, as
    mentioned in Chandra Mani's case (supra) this Court,
F   condoned the delay of 480 days in filing the SLP.

        v) In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Giga Ram and
    Others, (2002) 10 SCC 176, this Court, after finding that the
  High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of
G the facts and refusing to condone the delay, accepted the case
  of the appellant-Insurance Company by protecting the interest
  of the claimant and condoned the delay. It is relevant to point
  out that while accepting the stand of the Insurance Company
  for the delay, this Court has safeguarded the interest of the
H claimant also.
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1055
  v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
      vi) In State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao and Others, (2005)          A
3 SCC 752, this Court, while reiterating the principle that
latitude be given to government's litigation, allowed the appeal
filed by the State of Nagaland. It is also relevant to note here
that this matter relates to criminal jurisdiction and delay in filing
the SLP was only 57 days.                                               B

     8. Though the learned ASG heavily relied on the above said
decisions and the principles laid down, on going through all the
factual details, we are of the view that there is no quarrel about
the propositions inferred therein. However, considering the             C
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, this Court either
condoned the delay or upheld the order of the High Court
condoning the delay in filing appeal by the State. While keeping
those principles in mind, let us consider the reasonings placed
by the Postal Department with regard to the same.
                                                                        D
     9. In view of the stand taken by the Postal Department as
to the reasons for the delay and the serious objections of the
respondents, it is desirable to extract the entire statement as
placed in the form of "better affidavit" by the officer of the
appellant-Department:-                                                  E

    "I, Aparajeet Pattanayak presently posted as SSRM, Air
    Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly
    affirm and state as under:-

    1) In the official capacity mentioned above, I am                   F
    acquainted with the facts of the cass on the basis of the
    information derived from the record.

    2) On the last date of hearing i.e. 05.12.2011 this Hon'ble
    Court was pleased to allow the petitions to file better             G
    affidavit in support of the application for condonation of
    delay in filing Special Leave Petition.

    3) It is submitted that the delay is not intentional but is on
    account of the departmental/administrative procedures
    involved in for filing the petition for Special Leave Petition.     H
    1056    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A      It is submitted that unlike the private litigant the matters
       relating to government are required to be considered at
       various levels and then only a decision is taken.

       4) In the present case it would be evident from the
       following that delay has been caused due to unavoidable
B
       circumstances:-

           11.09. 2009      Date of judgment in LPA Nos. 418/
                            2007 and 1006/2007

c          29.10.2009       Certified copy of judgment not
                            received from the Government
                            counsel and hence copy of
                            judgment was downloaded from the
                            web site of Delhi High Court and
D                            office note was put by ASP (Court)
                             proposing to refer the matter to
                             Postal Directorate for opinion and
                             further course of action for approval
                             of the Chief Postmaster General,
                             Delhi.
E
           12.11.2009        Chief Postmaster General Delhi
                             approved to refer the matter to
                             Directorate.

F          16.12.2009        Directorate desired to submit legal
                             opinion and certified copy of
                             judgment.

           08.01.2010        The counsel appearing on behalf of
                             the petitioner had applied for the
G                            certified copy of the impugned
                             judgment and order and the same
                             was received by the Department on
                             08.01.2010.

H          11.01.2010        The desired documents supplied to
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1057
 v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
                   Directorate.                             A

   25.01.2010      Directorate desired to submit
                   copies of original writ petition filed
                   by the party, counter affidavit
                   thereto, copies of appeals filed by
                                                            B
                   DOP & counter reply thereto.

   12.02.2010      The desired documents supplied to
                   Directorate.

   17.02.2010      Directorate desired to send an           c
                   official/officer well conversant with
                   the case.

   15.03.2010      Directorate asked to depute an
                   officer well conversant with the case
                                                            D
                   to collect the UO Note along with
                   other documents to pursue the
                   matter with Mr. Suresh Chandra
                   Additional Legal Advisor.

   06.04.2010      Shri Suresh Chandra, Additional          E
                   Legal Advisor was contacted on
                   06.04.2010 and the matter was
                   briefed thoroughly by ASP (Court).

   25.06.2010      Case file collected from Directorate
                                                            F
                   and handed over to Central Agency
                   Section on 25.06.2010 under diary
                   No. 1865/2010 dated 25.06.2010
                   as per advice of Additional Legal
                   Advisor.
                                                            G
   26.06.2010 to   Central Agency Section sent the
                   file back

   30.06.2010      to the Postal Department with
                   directions to send the same through      H
    1058     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A                           Ministry of Law and Justice.

           01.07 .2010 to   After receiving the file through
                            proper 10.09.2010
                            channel. Central Agency Section
                            sent the file to Ld ASG for his
B
                            considered opinion and Ld.
                            Additional Solicitor General opined
                            that it is a fit case for filing the
                            Special Leave Petition.

c          11.09.201 O to   On receiving the opinion of Ld.
                            ASG the 30.09.2010 file was sent
                            to Central Agency for drafting the
                            Special Leave Petition.

D          01.10.2010       Directorate informed that ASG had
                            considered the case and found it fit
                            for Special Leave Petition.

           15.11.2010       The panel counsel prepared the
                            draft of Special Leave Petition and
E                           submitted the draft Special Leave
                            Petition with file to Central Agency
                            Section for further steps. The draft
                            Special Leave Petition was
                            forwarded to the Department by
F                           Central Agency Section for vetting.

                            After factual verification, the draft
                            Special Leave Petition was
                            returned to Central Agency Section
G                           for typing and preparation of Paper
                            Book which also took some time.

           04.01.2011       Special Leave Petition remained
                            pending due to non-availability of
                            disputed magazines of Reader's
H                           Digest and India Today. Hence,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1059
 v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
                        ASG was requested to intervene              A
                        and direct Shri Akash Pratap who
                        handled the case to provide the
                        magazines.

   14.01.2011           Shri A.K. Sharma was requested to           B
                        arrange to collect the above
                        magazines from the record of Delhi
                        High Court.

   31.01.2011           SSRM Delhi Sorting Division was
                        authorized to sign the affidavit on         c
                        behalf of the respondent.

   10.02.2011           Special Leave Petition filed in
                        Supreme Court.

  5. It is submitted that it is evident from the foregoing          D
  reasons that the delay caused in filing the petition was
  result of all the necessary and unavoidable office
  formalities and was bonafide and not deliberate or
  intentional and the petitioner was prevented by sufficient
  cause from filing the petition within the period of limitation.   E

  6. It is further submitted that the petitioner humbly seeks
  leave to draw the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court to the
  views expressed by this Hon'ble Court that liberal
  approach may be adopted and that the Court should not             F
  take too strict and pedantic stand which will cause injustice
  while considering the application for condonation of delay,
  in terms of its judgments in the case of Collector Land
  Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and
  Bhag Singh & Anr. Vs. Major Daljeet Singh & Ors. It is            G
  submitted that the principles for condonation of delay laid
  down in the above cited cases may therefore be adopted
  in the present case also.

  7. This Hon'ble Court in G. Ramegowda Vs. Special Land
  Acquisition Officer, (1998) 2 SCC 142 laid down that the          H
    1060   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A      expression sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation
       Act, 1963 must receive a liberal construction so as to
       advance substantial justice where no gross negligence or
       deliberate inaction of lack of bonafide is imputable to the
       party seeking condonation of delay.
B
       8. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani,
       reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, this Hon'ble Court observed
       and laid down as follows:-

              "when the State is an applicant, praying for
c             condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that
              on account of impersonal machinery and the
              inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the
              note- making, file-pushing and passing-on-the-buck
              ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult
D             to understand but more difficult to approve, but the
              State represents collective cause of the community.
              It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/
              agencies proverbially at slow pace and
              encumbered process of pushing the files from table
E             to table and keeping it on the table for considerable
              time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a
              routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape
              in the process of their making decision is a
              common feature. Therefore, certain amount of
F             latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought
              by the State are lost for such default, no person is
              individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis
              suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient
              cause" should, therefore, be considered with
              pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than
G
              the technical detection of sufficient cause for
              explaining every day's delay.

       9. This Hon'ble Court in Union of India vs. Manager, Jain
       and Associates, 2001 (3) SCC 277 decided on
H      06.02.2011 has held that delay ought to be condoned
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1061
  v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    when sufficiently explained particularly where party seeking      A
    condonation is the Government. It is further submitted that
    the Hon'ble High Court ought to have condoned the delay
    in considering the public revenue involved and also
    because of the genuine difficulties and circumstances
    beyond the control of the petitioner, on account of which         B
    Special Leave Petition could not be filed within the time."

     10. Before considering whether the reasons for justifying
such a huge delay are acceptable or not, it is also useful to refer
the decisions relied on by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior       C
counsel for the respondents.

     i) In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur
Riders Club, Bombay, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 603, there is a
delay of 264 days in filing the SLP by the Commissioner of
Wealth Tax, Bombay. The explanation for the delay had been            D
set out in petitioner's own words as under:

     " ..... 2 (g) The Advocate-on-Record got the special leave
     petition drafted from the drafting Advocate and sent the
     same for approval to the Board on June 24, 1993 along
                                                                      E
     with the case file.

     (h) Jhe Board returned the case file to the Advocate-on-
     Record on July 9, 1993 who re-sent the same to the Board
     on September 20, 1993 requesting that draft SLP was not
     approved by the Board. The Board after approving the             F
     draft SLP sent this file to CAS on October 1, 1993."

After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused
to condone the delay by observing thus:

     "3 ........ Having regard to the law of limitation which binds   G
     everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is
     true that Government should not be treated as any other
     private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the
     decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not
     individual but are institutional decisions necessarily           H
    1062     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A        bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are
         limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation
         offered for the delay in this case merely serves to
         aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in
         protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one
B        of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the
         criticism ti1at the Revenue does not seem to attach any
         importance to the need for promptitude even where it
         affects its own interest.

                                                  [Emphasis supplied]
c
       ii) In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive
  Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17
  SC 448, the question was whether the respondent-Executive
  Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause
D to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the
  High Court. In para 17, this Court held:

        " .....The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own
        right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot
        enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of
E
        equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are
        vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".

  After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view
  in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the
F Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed
  as under:-

        "29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object
        for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy
        fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general
G
        welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not
        resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies
        promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws
        come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

H
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1063
 v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, "I.]

   30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount A
   consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever
   conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale
   claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner
   subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of
   compensation to the landlosers facilitating their B
   rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of
   public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the
   beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not
   be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal
   rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation c
   unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which
   they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner.
   One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired
   is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These
   public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the D
   courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the
   application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
    Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the
    termination of legal proceedings would not serve any
    public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered E
    with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any
    proper explanation of such delay on the ground of
    involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."

     11. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned
in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. A_parajeet Pattanayak,     F
SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to
note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself
mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006
of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their      G
counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment
only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the
Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for
 not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on
 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact        H
     1064    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A  remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010,
   i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording
   another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate
   material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has
   filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within
B the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the
  affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that
  there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates
  of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no
  explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it
c was stated by the Department that the delay was due to
  unavoidable circ'Jmstances and genuine difficulties, the fact
  remains that from day one the Department or the person/
  persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting
  the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.
D          12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were
     well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the
    prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way
    of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim
    that they have a separate period of limitation when the
E    Department was possessed with competent persons familiar
    with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
    acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay
    is to be condoned mechanically merely because the
    Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
F   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
G   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
H   Government.
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1065
  v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the          A
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the
delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept
the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several
months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-            B
tape in the process. The government departments are under
a special obligation to er.sure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
government departments. The law shelters everyone under the           c
same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of
various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably
failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to        D
condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

       14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need
to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of
law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.         E
In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are
dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.