1.          The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 172 days as per the contention of the appellants and along with the appeal, an application I.A. No. 7538 of 2019, seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  It is contented in the application that the copy of the impugned order had been received by the appellants only on 15.10.2018 and the period of limitation had started running w.e.f. 16.10.2018.  After the impugned order was received, the matter was sent to the legal cell, which was received in the legal cell on 29.10.2018 and the concerned officials dealt with the orders on file and on 08.11.2018 the file was sent to the Law Officer.  The Law Officer recommended filing of an appeal.  Thereafter, the report from the accounts branch was sought on 01.02.2019 and the file was marked to higher authority for approval and also for engaging panel counsel.  On 14.03.2019, the Chief Administrator had approval for filing of the first appeal.  Thereafter the instructions were issued to the panel counsel for drawing the first appeal and the draft was prepared and was sent for vetting on 19.03.2019.  It was received back on 20.03.2019 and file was received by the counsel on 10.04.2019.  The documents were in Gurmukhi, hence the translation through a local translator in Delhi was sought and he retained the documents for a considerable time and returned it with grammatically incorrect translation on 25.04.2019.  The counsel thereafter sought for the translated copy of the said documents from the appellants on 26.04.2019.  It was received on 29.04.2019 and finally the appeal was filed on 06.05.2019.

2.          It is submitted that since the appellant is a government department and there are various steps to be taken before final decision for filing an appeal and preparing of the documents can be taken, so delay was inevitable and had to happen because of the administrative reasons.  It is submitted that delay was unintentional and bona-fide; hence the delay should be condoned.  Although learned counsel for the appellants have mentioned various case laws in the application but has relied on only two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019 decided on 01-07-2019 and in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 decided on 19.02.1987 during the course of arguments.

3.          We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  Although the Registry has noted that the delay is of about 390 days from the date of impugned order, but learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the noting in the copy of the impugned order itself, shows that the certified copy was received by the appellants only on 15.10.2018.  We accept this contention of learned counsel since they were supported by documents on record, hence period of limitation can be said to be started from 16.10.2018.  The period of limitation thus expired on 14.11.2018.  Admittedly, there is a delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal.  The delay is only attributed to the administrative reasons for movement of file from one desk to another and delayed response of the officers in taking decision which they obviously delayed and had not acted promptly.  Although they were aware of the fact that there is a period of limitation for filing of the appeal was only 30 day.  It is a settled proposition of law that parties are required to act diligently.  They are also required to explain the delay of each and every day.  The condonation is not a matter of right and the courts are refrained from exercising their jurisdiction to condone the delay where no sufficient reasons are shown.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the catena of judgments and also in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supra) has clearly held as under:

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

2.         Refusing to condone delay can result in a 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.

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.

4.         When substantial justice and technical 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.

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

4.          Also in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the courts / commissions retain the discretion for condoning the delay as condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where sufficient reasons are not shown, the Court has no other discretion but to dismiss the application.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that even where the sufficient causes are shown but if the applicant had not acted bonafidely still the court can refuse to condone the delay.  The Hon’ble Court held as under:-

“12.          It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

5.          In the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the matter relating to condonation of delay has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each and every case and the court is required to see that the delay stands properly explained.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal / petition has also to be seen.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"7.            We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

6.          In the present case the appellant is a government department and all its officials are government employees who need to follow the law of the land in letter and spirit. The period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days.  Yet the reasons given in the application shows that the officers and the other staff of the appellant had acted in a lethargic and casual manner. Although the file was received by the appellant’s Estate Office on 15.10.2018, it is seen that legal cell took more than 14-15 days after receiving the file on 29.10.2018 so by then the period of limitation had already expired.  The concerned officials sitting in the legal cell dealt with the file and it was only on 08.11.2018 when they sent it to the Law Officer. We presume that the Law Officer and concerned officials must be sitting in the same compound and Law Officer must have received the file on the same day whereas he took report from the accounts branch on 01.02.2019 i.e. almost after two months. This clearly shows that even the Law Officer who was well aware of the entire procedure and legal requirements, took two months to give his opinion and there was no explanation as to why they had taken so long period and thereafter also the administrative and other officials took more than one month and so in taking decision over that file.  This conduct clearly shows that the officials of the appellant had not acted diligently and were not vigilant about the matter.  No reasonable explanation as to why the officials took long time for taking decision has also come forward.  No reasons have been given as to why the file could not have been moved faster in the office. In fact there are no reasons given as to why the file has moved so slowly in the office.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,”  has clearly held that since the Consumer Protection Act is a special act which provides a special period of limitation, which fact has to be kept in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

    “5.        It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora."

7.          Moreover in the year 2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master Vs. Balram Singh Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)”  has clearly held that government departments are under obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“29.          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 departments”.

8.          From the above discussion it is apparent that the appellants have failed to give sufficient reasons and grounds seeking condonation for the delay and they are seeking condonation of delay only on the ground that there were administrative reasons.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Hemlata (Supra) has no application.  In that case while Hon’ble Supreme Court had said that the said delay of 207 days had found reasons mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay, sufficient cause for condoning the deal within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  Here we do not find the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay to be sufficient.  In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, where the delay was for four day, had been condoned but here the delay is of 172 days.  No doubt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition (Supra) has also observed that in the matter of condonation of delay, the court should take liberal view, however as discussed above the Hon’ble Supreme Court in other matters as mentioned above has cautioned the commission, and we are bound to take note of those decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further cautioned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act while dealing with such applications and also observed that the government departments stands at no better footing.

9.           We do not find any reasons to condone the delay.  Application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.