Whether bureaucratic negligence and delay in process of correspondence be a valid reason for condonation of a delay?

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1929

Case:-BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II

Citation:-2013 (32) S.T.R. 92 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief facts:-The applicant wants to seek condonation of a delay of 72 days in preferring the appeal. The reasons for the delay have been stated in appellant’s contentions. According to the pleadings, the petitioner/appellant received the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-2-2012 on 2-3-2012. On 26-3-2012 (as per the compilation filed by the petitioner explaining the meandering course of correspondence with the C.A.), the petitioner addressed the C.A. to furnish legal opinion with regard to the action to be taken against order of the Appellate Commissioner. Petitioner addressed another letter on 4-5-2012 reminding the C.A. that an opinion was awaited. Yet another letter was addressed to the C.A. on 8-6-2012. On 8-7-2012 the C.A. addressed the appellant stating that the petitioner had a good case on merits but the period of limitation was over and the appeal should be filed with an application for condonation. Thereafter the office of the petitioner at Jaipur wrote to the Corporate office at New Delhi for appointment of an advocate. On 13-7-2012 the Corporate office wrote back to the appellant permitting the appellant to file an appeal and suggesting name of the advocate to be engaged for filing the appeal. The petitioner then visited New Delhi on 26-7-2012 for discussions and preferring of the appeal. Thereafter the appeal was filed, causing the delay of 72 days.

Appellant’s contentions:-Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others v. Harish Chandra and Others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 = 1996 (85)E.L.T.209 (S.C.)to contend that delays inherent in a bureaucratic processes must be considered justification for delay in pursuing litigation.

Respondent’s contentions:- The respondent relied upon a recent judgment of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 2012 (277)E.L.T.289 (S.C.), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that all Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities must furnish reasonable and acceptable reasons for the delay and disclose a bonafide effort and could not offer the usual explanation that the file was kept pending on account of an endemic procedural red tape. The Apex Court observed that the Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure performance of duties with diligence and commitment; that condonation of delay was an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government/bureaucratic negligence.

Reasoning of judgment:-In the totality of circumstances, the hon’ble judge found the reason furnished for the delay unsatisfactory, thus they were not inclined to condone the delay. The said application was rejected.

Decision:-The stay application as well as the appeal stood dismissed.

Comment:- The analogy drawn from the case is that condonation of a delay can be sought on the grounds of delay due to elaborate and dilatory process of correspondence only if entity is able to furnish reasonable and acceptable reasons for delay. The delay occurred due to lenient and negligent approach in filing the appeal is not acceptable.

Comments

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1929

Post a Comment

Query