STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusBAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

                      [2013] 10 S.C.R. 137


               STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.                            A
                                v.
    BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No 8243 of 2013)
                    SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
                                                                    B
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

        Delay - Condonation of - Delay on part of the State in
  filing writ appeal before High Court - In the application for     C
  condonation of delay date of filing the appeal was
  inadvertently mentioned as 2. 11. 2006 instead of 8. 11. 2006
  - Dismissal of the application on the ground that the delay
  of 6 days i.e. from 2.11.2006 to 8.11.2006 not explained -
  Held: It is not proper to terminate a proceeding on technical     D
  ground like limitation, where there is no gross negligence, or
· deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides - In the instant case,
  in view of the fact that error was occasioned by inadvertence
  and in view of period of delay; High Court ought to have
  condoned the delay - Matter remitted to High Court.               E
      There was delay of 98 days in filing writ appeal before
 High Court, on behalf of the appellant-State. In the
 application for condonation of delay, date of filing the
 appeal was mentioned as 2.11.2006 while the actual date
 of filing was 8.11.2006. Division Bench of High. Court             F
 refused to condone the delay on the ground that the
 State could not explain the delay of 6 days i.e. from
 2.11.2006 to 8.11.2006. Hence the present appeal.
    Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High ·
 Court, the Court                                          G
     HELD: 1. It is correct that condonation of delay
 cannot be a matter of course; it is also correct that in
 seeking such condonation, the State cannot claim any
                               137                                  H
    138· ·   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A preferential or special treatment. However, in situation
  where there has been no gross negligence or deliberate
  inaction or lack of bonafides, a broad and liberal view
  needs to be taken so as to advance substantial justice .
  instead of terminating a proceeding on a technical
B ground like limitation. Unless the explanation furnished
  for the delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation
  whatsoever is offered or if the del~y is inordinate and
  third party rights had become embedded during the
  interregnum, the Courts should lean in favour of
c condonation. [Para 9) [141-E-G]           ·
         Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd:. (2012) 3
    SCC 563: 2012 (1) SCR 1-045; Amalendu Kumar Bera vs.
    State of West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC 52: 2013 (2) SCR 484 -
    referred to.
D
         2. In the present case, the High Court seems to have
    accepted the explanation for the delay upto 02.11.2006.
    Thereafter, taking into account the statement made in the
    condonation application that the appeal has been filed on
E · 02.11.2006, whereas it was ac•~ iall'y filed on 08.11 .'2006,
    the High Court refused to condone the delay of the :-ieriod
    between the two dates i.e. six days. The mention of the
    date 2.11.2006 is an errqr occasioned by inadvertence.
    The inadvertence or even if the above act is construed
F to be negligent, cannot be sufficient to justify a refusal
    of the· adjudication of tt)e appeal filed by the State on
    !"1erits which is the ~ltimate consequence of the
    impugned order. Taking1 into account the totality of the
    facts of the case, particularly the period of the delay, the
    High Court should have condoned the delay. [Para 10]
G [143-8-C, D-F]
                         Case Law Reference:
        2012 {1) SCR 1045         referred to          Para 9.
H       2013 (2) SCR 484          referred to          Para 9
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) 139
               THROUGH LRS ..
    CIVIL APPELLAT.E JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                A
8243 of 2013.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special
Appeal No. 02033 of 2007.
                                                                    8
     Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Amit Lubhaya, Milind Kumar for
the Appellants.
    Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    c
    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. Though the only issue that arises in this appeal is with
regard to the correctness of the order dated 12 .11 .2008 passed
by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court declining to
condone the delay that had occurred in the institution of Special   D
Appeal Writ No.02033 of 2007 by the appellant, a brief
conspectus of the relevant f~cts would be appropriate.
     3. An order of eviction dated 17 .12.1980 under the
Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction .of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1964 was passed by the Estate Officer against       E
the respondent (Now represented by his legal heirs). The
respondent was unsuccessful in the challenge made against
the said order in an appeal before the learned District Judge.
Thereafter, t~e respondent filed an application for review which
was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge   F.
who heard the matter and decided the same on 17.12.1993
                    '
as if he was hearing an appeal against the initial order of the
Estate Officer dated 17 .12.1980. The State of Rajasthan,
therefore, moved Civil Writ Petition No.3503 of 1995 before the
High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge          G
holding that the tenancy of the respondent could not be
determined except by following the provisions of Sections 106
and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as already held
in another connected case. ·
                                                                    .H
    140     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        4. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge
   of the High Court dated 19.05.2006, D.B. Special Appeal Writ
 . No.02033 of 2007 was filed by the State on. 08.11.2006. The
   office reported a delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal.
   Considering the explanation furnished by the State for the delay
B that had occurred, the Division Bench took note of the
   statement made by the appellant in the condonation application
   that the appeal was filed on 02.11.2006 whereas it was actually
   filed on 08.11.2006. The Division Bench, therefore, thought it
   proper to conclude that the period of six days between
c 02.11.2006 and 08.11.2006 had not been explained.
   Accordingly, the delay in fiting the D.B. Special Appeal Writ
   was not condoned. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.
   Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. ·

      5. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional
D Advocate Generar of Rajasthan for the appellant and Shri Shiv
  Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

          6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged
  that mention of the date 2.11.2006 as the date of filing of the
E appeal was inadvertent. Alternatively, it is contended that even
  if it is assumed that the State had failed to offer any explanation
  for filing the appeal on 08.1) .2006 after making a statement
  that the same was filed on 02.11.2006, the period of six days'
  is too insignificant to justify the view taken by the High Court.
F Learned counsel has also tried to take us to the merits of the
  appeal filed by the State to show that the order of the learned
  Single Judge under challenge in the appeal is ex-facie incorrect
  being contrary to several pronouncements of this Court. It is,
  therefore, urged that the impugned order would justify
G interference so as to ensure that the Appeal filed by the State
  is heard on merits.
      7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge while
  passing the order dated 19.05.2006 in the Civil Writ Petition
H No.3503 of 1995 had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D) 141
        THROUGH LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
  of the Constitution. Under the provisions of the Rajasthan High       A
  Court Ordinance 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder
  providing for intra court appeals, appeals are not contemplated
  against orders passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise
  of jurisdiction under Article 227. On the aforesaid basis it is
  submitted that the D.B. Special Appeal filed by the State before      B
  the High Court was not maintainable. The initial order of the
  learned Single Judge dated 19.05.2006 not being subject to
  any challenge in the present appeal before this Court, no
  interference is called for.
          8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on        C
    behalf of the parties, we deem it necessary to make it clear
    that in the present appeal we would not in any way be
· · concerned with the merits of the dispute between the parties.
    As already observed by us in the earlier part of this order it is
    only the question of condonatiori of delay in filing the D.B.       D
    Special Appeal that would require our consideration. The facts
    in this re·gard have already been noticed.
       9. It is correct that condonation of delay cannot be a matter
  of course; it is also correct that in seeking such condonation
  the State cannot claim any preferential or special treatment. E
  However, in situation where there has been no gross
  negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides this Court
  .has always taken a broad and lib~ral view so as to advance ·
  substantial justice instead of terminating a proceeding on a
  technical ground like limitation. Unless the explanation furnished F
  for the delay is wholly unacceptable or if no explanation
  whatsoever is offered or if the delay is inordinate and third party
  rights had become embedded during the interregnum the
  Courts should lean in favour of condonation. Our observations
  in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. 1 and G
  Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West BengafZ do not strike
  any discordant note and have to be understood in the context
  of facts of the respective cases.
  1.   (2012) 3 sec 563.
  2.   (2013) 4 sec 52.
                                                                        H
    142       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 1,0 S.C.R.


A         Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (supra)

        "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter
        of condonatiori of delay when there was no gross
        negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a
        liberal concession .has to be adopted to advance
B
        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 sev~ral notes cannot be accepted
c       in view of the modern technologies being used and
        available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds
        everybody,. including the Government.

          29; In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
D         government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
          that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
          explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort,
          there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the
          file was kept. pending for several months/years due to
E         considerable degree of procedural 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
F         for the government departments. The law shelters everyone
          under the same light and should not be. swirled for the
          benefit of a few.''

    Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal (supra)

G         "10. .. . True it is, that courts should always take liberal
          approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly
          when the appellant is the State but in a case where there
          are serious laches an<;I negligence on the part of the State
          in challenging the decree passed in the suit and affirmed
H         in appeal, the State cannot be allowed to wait to file
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BAL KISHAN MATHUR (D.) 143 .
      THROUGH LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
    objection under Section 47 till the decree-holder puts the     A
    decree in execution .... Merely because the respondent is
    the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and
    shall no~ be mechanically considered and in the absence
    of "sufficient cause" delay shall not be condoned."
                                                                   B
      10. In the present case, the High Court seems to have
accepted the explanation. for the delay upto 02.11.2006. ·
Thereafter, taking into account the statement made in the
condonatjon application that the appeal has been filed on
02.11.2006, whereas it was actually filed on 08.11.2006, the C
High Court refused to condone the delay of the period between
the two dates i.e. six days. Reading the relevant paragraph of
the condonation application it is obvious to us that there is an
apparent error or mix up in the dates furnished by the State in
its application for condonation of delay. The mention of the date
2.11.2006 in para 5 of .the condonation application is by hand. D ·
Obviously it is an error occasioned by inadvertence. The date
that should have been mentioned is 8.11.2006 and not
2.11.2006. The inadvertence or even if the above act is
construed to be negligent, in our considered view, cannot be
sufficient to justify a refusal of the adjudication of the appeal E
filed by the State on merits which is the ultimate consequence
of the impugned order. Taking into account the totality of the
facts of the case, particularly the period of the delay, we are of
the view that in the present case, the High Court should have .
condoned the delay. The same not having been done we deem F
it·appropriate to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated
12.11.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court;
condone the delay that had occurred in filing of D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.02033 of 2007 and remit the matter back to
the High Court for disposal on merits. We make it clear that G
we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
of the parties before us.

K.K.T.      Appeal allowed & Matter remitted to High Court.
                                                                   H