The entire file clearly indicates how the matter was dealt with
indifferent attitude totally ignoring the huge demand of taxes against the
respondent/writ petitioner. Even the certified copy was applied for much
later than the date of impugned order somewhere in the month of February
2016. It is very clear from records at every stage with reference to above
dates, the matter was treated very lightly. Except explaining the dates
saying who said what the entire explanation given in the affidavit and on
perusal of the papers maintained so far as seeking opinion to prefer appeal
clearly indicate how the matter was dealt with, that is totally in an
indifferent manner. The impersonal manner in which the attention was
given clearly indicate except explaining the note making, file pushing and
passing on the responsibility to others nothing seriously was thought of.
The way the papers are handled from office to office, reluctance in taking
immediate action is clearly indicated. But the fact remains whether this can
be a valid reason to reject the prayer seeking condonation of delay.
Definitely it is very difficult to approve laxity with which the papers werehandled from stage to stage which ultimately resulted in delay of 299 days.
The total demand is more than 50 lakhs. The amount demanded as tax on
advertisement is not one time liability, it keeps recurring whenever such
advertisements are done or annually as the case may be. Therefore, it is not
absolving the liability of more than 50 lakhs once or loss of huge amount of
tax once. So far as the appellants are concerned, they are dealing with
public money and public property. No doubt the delay is on account of
indifferent attitude since the matter is not personal. Action was taken at
snail’s pace since the matter is not personal. We are convinced that there
have been serious lapses on the part of the officers/agents concerned who
had to take a final call in preferring an appeal.
Under these circumstances should we condone the delay? If the
application is not allowed it would affect definitely public exchequer thereby
the appellant Corporation will be deprived of huge money, if they are
successful so far as their stand before this Court. Time and again the Apex
Court of this Country has said certain amount of latitude no doubt is
always expected from this bureaucratic approach of the officers since they
work in an impersonal bureaucratic set up but how long this would
continue. In spite of constituting legal cells to examine the matter and to
take final call on the matter huge delay is being caused. No doubt, the very
nature of foundation of governmental machinery requires serious re-look
into the matter. However, one cannot forget that pragmatic approach should
be there in justice oriented process. At one blush one cannot totally reject
the very claim of the appellants as explained in the memorandum of appeal.
Though there cannot be separate standards to determine ‘sufficient cause’shown by the State vis a vis private litigant since the public cannot directly
approach the Court on behalf of the governmental machinery there has to
be pragmatic approach since the imprompt action to be pursued by the
officers/agents would affect the interest of public at large. We are of the
opinion it is not the Corporation as such who is responsible for the delay
but the officers/agents handling the matters are responsible for the latitude
with which they have taken the entire exercise. The files clearly indicate
delay has occurred only on account of indifferent attitude of the officers
concerned in not showing the anxiety to take a final call in spite of huge
money being involved in the matter. Ultimately it would lead to defeat of
justice by causing delay only on account of impersonal manner in which
they dealt with the files. The victim is justice and the same cannot be
allowed. The deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the officers cannot
be a ground to sacrifice justice. In order to make the ends of justice meet
since large public interest is involved, we are of the opinion we have to take
a lenient view in the matter. Further we are of the opinion that there has to
be serious action against those persons who are responsible for the present
situation on account of absence of timely action. Such inaction of the
officers is to be curbed and the way we can express our displeasure is by
imposing costs while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We direct the
appellant/corporation to take action against those erring officials and also
to recover the costs imposed by us from those officers who are responsible
for the delay. They did not even bother to apply for certified copy of the
impugned order till February 2016.In the light of the above discussion and reasoning we allow the
application for condonation of delay being G.A. 973 of 2016 on payment of
cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
G.A.973 of 2016
APOT 105 of 2016
W.P. 2662 of 1996
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Vs.
The Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Delivered on : 09.08.2016.
The above appeal pertains to demand of advertisement tax imposed by
Calcutta Municipal Corporation so far as the advertisements undertaken
within the Eden Garden grounds by the respondent Cricket Association of
Bengal. We are not disposing of the appeal on merits since there is serious
dispute with regard to the so-called ‘sufficient cause’ shown by the appellantCorporation in filing the present appeal with delay of 299 days while
challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24th
April, 2015.
Tax on advertisements amounting to a sum of Rs.51,18,440/- was
demanded by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved by the same a
writ petition in the nature of mandamus and certiorari was sought by the
respondent Association.
After hearing the respective parties, judgement and order came to be
passed on 24th April, 2015. According to the affidavit in support of this, the
above application was filed by Arghya Sikder, Manager of the Advertisement
Department of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. According to him,
communication of the order dated 24th April, 2015 was received in the
second week of May, 2015 and he had a discussion with Chief Municipal
Law Officer regarding the next course of action. It is further stated that the
Chief Municipal Law Officer instructed the Deputy Municipal Law Officer to
secure views of the learned Advocate who was engaged in the above matter.
Accordingly, learned Junior Advocate dealing with the matter was asked to
give her valued opinion somewhere in the last week of May, 2015. Since the
Junior Advocate was busy with the other matters, she could not look into
the mater instantly but on perusal of the order requested the Law
Department to forward the matter to the Advertisement Department of the
Corporation to obtain its stand since it pertains to advertisement tax. Since
the Advertisement Department itself had requested the Law Department to
explore the possibility of challenging the impugned order, the AdvertisementDepartment again approached the learned Junior Advocate in the last of
week of August, 2015 for her opinion so as to avoid further delay. At that
juncture, learned Junior Advocate enquired about the application for
certified copy of the order and further instructed to obtain such certified
copy, if it was not at all applied for. No certified copy was applied for till
then as they were only waiting for the opinion to prefer appeal. However, on
going through the papers of the case, learned Advocate was of the opinion
that the matter involves important legal questions as the amount demanded
was huge. Learned Junior Advocate requested the Law Department in the
first week of September, 2015 to obtain legal opinion from the Senior
Advocate for preferring an appeal.
Thereafter, the Law Department is said to have forwarded all the
papers including the order of the High Court to learned Senior Advocate Mr.
D. Chakraborty in the third week of September, 2015 who in turn gave his
opinion for preferring an appeal in the second week of October, 2015. The
Law Department requested the Senior Advocate to draw memo of appeal and
forward the same to the Law Department for approval. Meanwhile, Puja
Vacation commenced and the Court re-opened only on 16th November,
2015.
In the second week of December, 2015, learned Senior Advocate after
completing the draft of the memorandum of appeal forwarded the same to
the Law Department and the Law Department in turn after holding
discussion with the Officers of Licence Department, Advertisement
Department decided to sit with the learned Senior Advocate for overalldiscussion. This discussion could happen only in the month of January,
2016 i.e. 14th January, 2016. There was modification of some of the grounds
of appeal as per the opinion of the learned Senior Advocate. Meanwhile,
necessary enquiry was made as regards obtaining certified copy, however,
there was no clear information with certainties whether certified copy of the
order was applied for when instructed. The application for obtaining
certified copy was made on 5th February, 2016 which came to be issued only
on 19th February, 2016. After re-drafting of the memorandum of appeal and
completion of all formalities, only in the last week of March, 2016, it was got
ready. The condonation of delay application was again prepared with all the
details and in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, according to
the appellants, delay of 299 days has occurred in preferring the appeal.
As against this, one of the Honorary Joint Secretaries of the
respondent no.1 Association who is well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the matter has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. According
to the respondent Association, the so-called sufficient cause for the delay in
filing the appeal is only for the sake of explaining the delay and on the other
hand, there has been gross and deliberate breach, delay and laches on the
part of the appellants in approaching the Court. Therefore, they dispute
each and every explanation or statement given. According to them,
‘sufficient cause’ for delay has to be explained on day to day basis, which is
obviously not explained to have justification for their delay. Since limitation
is a statutory provision and condonation of such delay is an exception that
could be granted only if proper and sufficient grounds are shown for such
delay, but the entire application indicates only the negligence on the part ofthe appellants and its Officers in dealing with the matter in a lethargic
manner. If hardship and inconvenience is caused to a particular party, no
such explanation could be allowed. Since no bonafide mistake is
forthcoming from the explanation and on the other hand, action of the
Officers and the agents of the appellants would indicate willful and callous
behaviour in dealing with the matter, the explanation is only to circumvent
the statutory provision and not genuine. All the averments made in
paragraphs 13 to 16 of the application are denied and they seek dismissal of
the application since it lacks bonafides.
In reply, the appellant’s Mr. Arghya Sikder once again filed affidavit
denying gross and deliberate breach, delay and laches on the part of the
appellants in approaching the Court. He reiterates the same statement
made in the condonation of delay application and contends that there was
no negligence on the part of either of the Officers or agents of the
appellants/Corporation. According to them, there was no justification in
seeking day to day explanation for the purpose of condonation of delay and
according to the appellants, the affidavit-in-opposition is thoroughly
misconceived and further they contend that there was a very good case so
far as merits of the appeal are concerned. According to them, respondent
wants to avoid reconsideration of all the important legal questions with
reference to the facts of the appeal. With the above explanation, they seek
for condonation of delay.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pronob Kumar Dutta arguing for the
appellants contend that the Court should decide the matter on meritswhenever it has to consider the sufficient cause in support of condonation of
delay. According to them, when State is an applicant, on account of
impersonal machinery coupled with bureaucratic methodology in which the
system works, the Court has to understand the process of decision making
since officers and agents move at very slow pace as they are encumbered
with the process of pushing the files from table to table (intentional or
otherwise). In other words, according to learned Senior Counsel it is a
routine and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is always expected. If such
latitude of the officers/agents is taken into consideration to negative the
cause of the State, ultimately it is public interest which is at jeopardy and
not the individual officer or the agency they rely upon. Therefore, one has
to adopt a pragmatic approach in justice oriented process and decide the
case on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. He places
reliance on the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Ors.,
(1996) 3 SCC 132 in support of his contention. He further contends that
while considering the movement of file from table to table, which is kept, on
table for a considerable time resulting in delay, Court cannot seek
explanation on day to day basis. He also relies upon (1987) 2 SCC 107
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag and & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji &
Ors. to contend that substantial justice to parties while disposing of matters
on merits should be the foundation while deciding the condonation of delay
application. The sufficient cause employed is adequately a huge circle
wherein Courts have to interpret the same in a meaningful manner subserving
ends of justice. One cannot have a pedantic approach in expecting
every day’s delay being explained. He also relies upon (2015) 3 SCC 569,
Executive Officer Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (Dead) bylegal representatives to contend that larger public interest should always
be the criterion in deciding the sufficient cause while considering an
application for condonation of delay, howsoever, huge may be the delay.
Per contra learned counsel representing the respondent brought to
our notice 1994 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases 603
(Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur Riders Club,
Bombay) in support of his contention that mere explanation of delay by
mentioning the dates of movement of files between the officers concerned
and the counsel is nothing but a stereo type manner which clearly indicates
indifference to the subject, therefore, the contention of the appellants that
there was sufficient cause for the delay cannot be accepted. He also refers to
(2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448 (Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by
LRS. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another) to
contend that it amounts to abuse of process of court by public authority if
such public authority in order to get rid of bar of limitation takes resort to
false plea. In such circumstances respondent authority cannot take
advantage of its negligence. He also referred to (2012) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 157 (Maniben Debraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan,
Mumbai) to contend that under certain conditions, however genuine the
case of the party on merits, condonation of delay cannot be allowed if the
explanation for delay is non specific and especially when it is created for the
purpose of the explanation. With these arguments placed before us we also
went through the files maintained by the appellants-corporation.
On 20th May, 2015 on the photocopy of the impugned judgment a
note is seen which says ‘whether appeal to be preferred or not.’ Thereafteronly on 25th May, 2015 itself there is a note by one Sima Chakraborty,
learned advocate advising to prefer appeal. On the letterhead of Sima
Chakraborty, learned advocate on 3rd September, 2015 there is
acknowledgement by the Corporation authority wherein Sima Chakraborty
has requested to seek opinion from the senior advocate. Draft of appeal was
sent for approval by Sima Chakraborty on 15th December, 2015. Again on
6th January, 2016 there is a note to send the draft for approval to Mr.
Ghosh, learned advocate of the Corporation. Later after corrections on 10th
March, 2016 draft was sent.
The entire file clearly indicates how the matter was dealt with
indifferent attitude totally ignoring the huge demand of taxes against the
respondent/writ petitioner. Even the certified copy was applied for much
later than the date of impugned order somewhere in the month of February
2016. It is very clear from records at every stage with reference to above
dates, the matter was treated very lightly. Except explaining the dates
saying who said what the entire explanation given in the affidavit and on
perusal of the papers maintained so far as seeking opinion to prefer appeal
clearly indicate how the matter was dealt with, that is totally in an
indifferent manner. The impersonal manner in which the attention was
given clearly indicate except explaining the note making, file pushing and
passing on the responsibility to others nothing seriously was thought of.
The way the papers are handled from office to office, reluctance in taking
immediate action is clearly indicated. But the fact remains whether this can
be a valid reason to reject the prayer seeking condonation of delay.
Definitely it is very difficult to approve laxity with which the papers werehandled from stage to stage which ultimately resulted in delay of 299 days.
The total demand is more than 50 lakhs. The amount demanded as tax on
advertisement is not one time liability, it keeps recurring whenever such
advertisements are done or annually as the case may be. Therefore, it is not
absolving the liability of more than 50 lakhs once or loss of huge amount of
tax once. So far as the appellants are concerned, they are dealing with
public money and public property. No doubt the delay is on account of
indifferent attitude since the matter is not personal. Action was taken at
snail’s pace since the matter is not personal. We are convinced that there
have been serious lapses on the part of the officers/agents concerned who
had to take a final call in preferring an appeal.
Under these circumstances should we condone the delay? If the
application is not allowed it would affect definitely public exchequer thereby
the appellant Corporation will be deprived of huge money, if they are
successful so far as their stand before this Court. Time and again the Apex
Court of this Country has said certain amount of latitude no doubt is
always expected from this bureaucratic approach of the officers since they
work in an impersonal bureaucratic set up but how long this would
continue. In spite of constituting legal cells to examine the matter and to
take final call on the matter huge delay is being caused. No doubt, the very
nature of foundation of governmental machinery requires serious re-look
into the matter. However, one cannot forget that pragmatic approach should
be there in justice oriented process. At one blush one cannot totally reject
the very claim of the appellants as explained in the memorandum of appeal.
Though there cannot be separate standards to determine ‘sufficient cause’shown by the State vis a vis private litigant since the public cannot directly
approach the Court on behalf of the governmental machinery there has to
be pragmatic approach since the imprompt action to be pursued by the
officers/agents would affect the interest of public at large. We are of the
opinion it is not the Corporation as such who is responsible for the delay
but the officers/agents handling the matters are responsible for the latitude
with which they have taken the entire exercise. The files clearly indicate
delay has occurred only on account of indifferent attitude of the officers
concerned in not showing the anxiety to take a final call in spite of huge
money being involved in the matter. Ultimately it would lead to defeat of
justice by causing delay only on account of impersonal manner in which
they dealt with the files. The victim is justice and the same cannot be
allowed. The deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the officers cannot
be a ground to sacrifice justice. In order to make the ends of justice meet
since large public interest is involved, we are of the opinion we have to take
a lenient view in the matter. Further we are of the opinion that there has to
be serious action against those persons who are responsible for the present
situation on account of absence of timely action. Such inaction of the
officers is to be curbed and the way we can express our displeasure is by
imposing costs while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We direct the
appellant/corporation to take action against those erring officials and also
to recover the costs imposed by us from those officers who are responsible
for the delay. They did not even bother to apply for certified copy of the
impugned order till February 2016.In the light of the above discussion and reasoning we allow the
application for condonation of delay being G.A. 973 of 2016 on payment of
cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice)
I agree.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
jb./as.
Print Page
indifferent attitude totally ignoring the huge demand of taxes against the
respondent/writ petitioner. Even the certified copy was applied for much
later than the date of impugned order somewhere in the month of February
2016. It is very clear from records at every stage with reference to above
dates, the matter was treated very lightly. Except explaining the dates
saying who said what the entire explanation given in the affidavit and on
perusal of the papers maintained so far as seeking opinion to prefer appeal
clearly indicate how the matter was dealt with, that is totally in an
indifferent manner. The impersonal manner in which the attention was
given clearly indicate except explaining the note making, file pushing and
passing on the responsibility to others nothing seriously was thought of.
The way the papers are handled from office to office, reluctance in taking
immediate action is clearly indicated. But the fact remains whether this can
be a valid reason to reject the prayer seeking condonation of delay.
Definitely it is very difficult to approve laxity with which the papers werehandled from stage to stage which ultimately resulted in delay of 299 days.
The total demand is more than 50 lakhs. The amount demanded as tax on
advertisement is not one time liability, it keeps recurring whenever such
advertisements are done or annually as the case may be. Therefore, it is not
absolving the liability of more than 50 lakhs once or loss of huge amount of
tax once. So far as the appellants are concerned, they are dealing with
public money and public property. No doubt the delay is on account of
indifferent attitude since the matter is not personal. Action was taken at
snail’s pace since the matter is not personal. We are convinced that there
have been serious lapses on the part of the officers/agents concerned who
had to take a final call in preferring an appeal.
Under these circumstances should we condone the delay? If the
application is not allowed it would affect definitely public exchequer thereby
the appellant Corporation will be deprived of huge money, if they are
successful so far as their stand before this Court. Time and again the Apex
Court of this Country has said certain amount of latitude no doubt is
always expected from this bureaucratic approach of the officers since they
work in an impersonal bureaucratic set up but how long this would
continue. In spite of constituting legal cells to examine the matter and to
take final call on the matter huge delay is being caused. No doubt, the very
nature of foundation of governmental machinery requires serious re-look
into the matter. However, one cannot forget that pragmatic approach should
be there in justice oriented process. At one blush one cannot totally reject
the very claim of the appellants as explained in the memorandum of appeal.
Though there cannot be separate standards to determine ‘sufficient cause’shown by the State vis a vis private litigant since the public cannot directly
approach the Court on behalf of the governmental machinery there has to
be pragmatic approach since the imprompt action to be pursued by the
officers/agents would affect the interest of public at large. We are of the
opinion it is not the Corporation as such who is responsible for the delay
but the officers/agents handling the matters are responsible for the latitude
with which they have taken the entire exercise. The files clearly indicate
delay has occurred only on account of indifferent attitude of the officers
concerned in not showing the anxiety to take a final call in spite of huge
money being involved in the matter. Ultimately it would lead to defeat of
justice by causing delay only on account of impersonal manner in which
they dealt with the files. The victim is justice and the same cannot be
allowed. The deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the officers cannot
be a ground to sacrifice justice. In order to make the ends of justice meet
since large public interest is involved, we are of the opinion we have to take
a lenient view in the matter. Further we are of the opinion that there has to
be serious action against those persons who are responsible for the present
situation on account of absence of timely action. Such inaction of the
officers is to be curbed and the way we can express our displeasure is by
imposing costs while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We direct the
appellant/corporation to take action against those erring officials and also
to recover the costs imposed by us from those officers who are responsible
for the delay. They did not even bother to apply for certified copy of the
impugned order till February 2016.In the light of the above discussion and reasoning we allow the
application for condonation of delay being G.A. 973 of 2016 on payment of
cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
G.A.973 of 2016
APOT 105 of 2016
W.P. 2662 of 1996
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Vs.
The Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Delivered on : 09.08.2016.
The above appeal pertains to demand of advertisement tax imposed by
Calcutta Municipal Corporation so far as the advertisements undertaken
within the Eden Garden grounds by the respondent Cricket Association of
Bengal. We are not disposing of the appeal on merits since there is serious
dispute with regard to the so-called ‘sufficient cause’ shown by the appellantCorporation in filing the present appeal with delay of 299 days while
challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24th
April, 2015.
Tax on advertisements amounting to a sum of Rs.51,18,440/- was
demanded by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved by the same a
writ petition in the nature of mandamus and certiorari was sought by the
respondent Association.
After hearing the respective parties, judgement and order came to be
passed on 24th April, 2015. According to the affidavit in support of this, the
above application was filed by Arghya Sikder, Manager of the Advertisement
Department of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. According to him,
communication of the order dated 24th April, 2015 was received in the
second week of May, 2015 and he had a discussion with Chief Municipal
Law Officer regarding the next course of action. It is further stated that the
Chief Municipal Law Officer instructed the Deputy Municipal Law Officer to
secure views of the learned Advocate who was engaged in the above matter.
Accordingly, learned Junior Advocate dealing with the matter was asked to
give her valued opinion somewhere in the last week of May, 2015. Since the
Junior Advocate was busy with the other matters, she could not look into
the mater instantly but on perusal of the order requested the Law
Department to forward the matter to the Advertisement Department of the
Corporation to obtain its stand since it pertains to advertisement tax. Since
the Advertisement Department itself had requested the Law Department to
explore the possibility of challenging the impugned order, the AdvertisementDepartment again approached the learned Junior Advocate in the last of
week of August, 2015 for her opinion so as to avoid further delay. At that
juncture, learned Junior Advocate enquired about the application for
certified copy of the order and further instructed to obtain such certified
copy, if it was not at all applied for. No certified copy was applied for till
then as they were only waiting for the opinion to prefer appeal. However, on
going through the papers of the case, learned Advocate was of the opinion
that the matter involves important legal questions as the amount demanded
was huge. Learned Junior Advocate requested the Law Department in the
first week of September, 2015 to obtain legal opinion from the Senior
Advocate for preferring an appeal.
Thereafter, the Law Department is said to have forwarded all the
papers including the order of the High Court to learned Senior Advocate Mr.
D. Chakraborty in the third week of September, 2015 who in turn gave his
opinion for preferring an appeal in the second week of October, 2015. The
Law Department requested the Senior Advocate to draw memo of appeal and
forward the same to the Law Department for approval. Meanwhile, Puja
Vacation commenced and the Court re-opened only on 16th November,
2015.
In the second week of December, 2015, learned Senior Advocate after
completing the draft of the memorandum of appeal forwarded the same to
the Law Department and the Law Department in turn after holding
discussion with the Officers of Licence Department, Advertisement
Department decided to sit with the learned Senior Advocate for overalldiscussion. This discussion could happen only in the month of January,
2016 i.e. 14th January, 2016. There was modification of some of the grounds
of appeal as per the opinion of the learned Senior Advocate. Meanwhile,
necessary enquiry was made as regards obtaining certified copy, however,
there was no clear information with certainties whether certified copy of the
order was applied for when instructed. The application for obtaining
certified copy was made on 5th February, 2016 which came to be issued only
on 19th February, 2016. After re-drafting of the memorandum of appeal and
completion of all formalities, only in the last week of March, 2016, it was got
ready. The condonation of delay application was again prepared with all the
details and in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, according to
the appellants, delay of 299 days has occurred in preferring the appeal.
As against this, one of the Honorary Joint Secretaries of the
respondent no.1 Association who is well acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the matter has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. According
to the respondent Association, the so-called sufficient cause for the delay in
filing the appeal is only for the sake of explaining the delay and on the other
hand, there has been gross and deliberate breach, delay and laches on the
part of the appellants in approaching the Court. Therefore, they dispute
each and every explanation or statement given. According to them,
‘sufficient cause’ for delay has to be explained on day to day basis, which is
obviously not explained to have justification for their delay. Since limitation
is a statutory provision and condonation of such delay is an exception that
could be granted only if proper and sufficient grounds are shown for such
delay, but the entire application indicates only the negligence on the part ofthe appellants and its Officers in dealing with the matter in a lethargic
manner. If hardship and inconvenience is caused to a particular party, no
such explanation could be allowed. Since no bonafide mistake is
forthcoming from the explanation and on the other hand, action of the
Officers and the agents of the appellants would indicate willful and callous
behaviour in dealing with the matter, the explanation is only to circumvent
the statutory provision and not genuine. All the averments made in
paragraphs 13 to 16 of the application are denied and they seek dismissal of
the application since it lacks bonafides.
In reply, the appellant’s Mr. Arghya Sikder once again filed affidavit
denying gross and deliberate breach, delay and laches on the part of the
appellants in approaching the Court. He reiterates the same statement
made in the condonation of delay application and contends that there was
no negligence on the part of either of the Officers or agents of the
appellants/Corporation. According to them, there was no justification in
seeking day to day explanation for the purpose of condonation of delay and
according to the appellants, the affidavit-in-opposition is thoroughly
misconceived and further they contend that there was a very good case so
far as merits of the appeal are concerned. According to them, respondent
wants to avoid reconsideration of all the important legal questions with
reference to the facts of the appeal. With the above explanation, they seek
for condonation of delay.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pronob Kumar Dutta arguing for the
appellants contend that the Court should decide the matter on meritswhenever it has to consider the sufficient cause in support of condonation of
delay. According to them, when State is an applicant, on account of
impersonal machinery coupled with bureaucratic methodology in which the
system works, the Court has to understand the process of decision making
since officers and agents move at very slow pace as they are encumbered
with the process of pushing the files from table to table (intentional or
otherwise). In other words, according to learned Senior Counsel it is a
routine and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is always expected. If such
latitude of the officers/agents is taken into consideration to negative the
cause of the State, ultimately it is public interest which is at jeopardy and
not the individual officer or the agency they rely upon. Therefore, one has
to adopt a pragmatic approach in justice oriented process and decide the
case on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. He places
reliance on the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Ors.,
(1996) 3 SCC 132 in support of his contention. He further contends that
while considering the movement of file from table to table, which is kept, on
table for a considerable time resulting in delay, Court cannot seek
explanation on day to day basis. He also relies upon (1987) 2 SCC 107
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag and & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji &
Ors. to contend that substantial justice to parties while disposing of matters
on merits should be the foundation while deciding the condonation of delay
application. The sufficient cause employed is adequately a huge circle
wherein Courts have to interpret the same in a meaningful manner subserving
ends of justice. One cannot have a pedantic approach in expecting
every day’s delay being explained. He also relies upon (2015) 3 SCC 569,
Executive Officer Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (Dead) bylegal representatives to contend that larger public interest should always
be the criterion in deciding the sufficient cause while considering an
application for condonation of delay, howsoever, huge may be the delay.
Per contra learned counsel representing the respondent brought to
our notice 1994 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases 603
(Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur Riders Club,
Bombay) in support of his contention that mere explanation of delay by
mentioning the dates of movement of files between the officers concerned
and the counsel is nothing but a stereo type manner which clearly indicates
indifference to the subject, therefore, the contention of the appellants that
there was sufficient cause for the delay cannot be accepted. He also refers to
(2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448 (Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by
LRS. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another) to
contend that it amounts to abuse of process of court by public authority if
such public authority in order to get rid of bar of limitation takes resort to
false plea. In such circumstances respondent authority cannot take
advantage of its negligence. He also referred to (2012) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 157 (Maniben Debraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan,
Mumbai) to contend that under certain conditions, however genuine the
case of the party on merits, condonation of delay cannot be allowed if the
explanation for delay is non specific and especially when it is created for the
purpose of the explanation. With these arguments placed before us we also
went through the files maintained by the appellants-corporation.
On 20th May, 2015 on the photocopy of the impugned judgment a
note is seen which says ‘whether appeal to be preferred or not.’ Thereafteronly on 25th May, 2015 itself there is a note by one Sima Chakraborty,
learned advocate advising to prefer appeal. On the letterhead of Sima
Chakraborty, learned advocate on 3rd September, 2015 there is
acknowledgement by the Corporation authority wherein Sima Chakraborty
has requested to seek opinion from the senior advocate. Draft of appeal was
sent for approval by Sima Chakraborty on 15th December, 2015. Again on
6th January, 2016 there is a note to send the draft for approval to Mr.
Ghosh, learned advocate of the Corporation. Later after corrections on 10th
March, 2016 draft was sent.
The entire file clearly indicates how the matter was dealt with
indifferent attitude totally ignoring the huge demand of taxes against the
respondent/writ petitioner. Even the certified copy was applied for much
later than the date of impugned order somewhere in the month of February
2016. It is very clear from records at every stage with reference to above
dates, the matter was treated very lightly. Except explaining the dates
saying who said what the entire explanation given in the affidavit and on
perusal of the papers maintained so far as seeking opinion to prefer appeal
clearly indicate how the matter was dealt with, that is totally in an
indifferent manner. The impersonal manner in which the attention was
given clearly indicate except explaining the note making, file pushing and
passing on the responsibility to others nothing seriously was thought of.
The way the papers are handled from office to office, reluctance in taking
immediate action is clearly indicated. But the fact remains whether this can
be a valid reason to reject the prayer seeking condonation of delay.
Definitely it is very difficult to approve laxity with which the papers werehandled from stage to stage which ultimately resulted in delay of 299 days.
The total demand is more than 50 lakhs. The amount demanded as tax on
advertisement is not one time liability, it keeps recurring whenever such
advertisements are done or annually as the case may be. Therefore, it is not
absolving the liability of more than 50 lakhs once or loss of huge amount of
tax once. So far as the appellants are concerned, they are dealing with
public money and public property. No doubt the delay is on account of
indifferent attitude since the matter is not personal. Action was taken at
snail’s pace since the matter is not personal. We are convinced that there
have been serious lapses on the part of the officers/agents concerned who
had to take a final call in preferring an appeal.
Under these circumstances should we condone the delay? If the
application is not allowed it would affect definitely public exchequer thereby
the appellant Corporation will be deprived of huge money, if they are
successful so far as their stand before this Court. Time and again the Apex
Court of this Country has said certain amount of latitude no doubt is
always expected from this bureaucratic approach of the officers since they
work in an impersonal bureaucratic set up but how long this would
continue. In spite of constituting legal cells to examine the matter and to
take final call on the matter huge delay is being caused. No doubt, the very
nature of foundation of governmental machinery requires serious re-look
into the matter. However, one cannot forget that pragmatic approach should
be there in justice oriented process. At one blush one cannot totally reject
the very claim of the appellants as explained in the memorandum of appeal.
Though there cannot be separate standards to determine ‘sufficient cause’shown by the State vis a vis private litigant since the public cannot directly
approach the Court on behalf of the governmental machinery there has to
be pragmatic approach since the imprompt action to be pursued by the
officers/agents would affect the interest of public at large. We are of the
opinion it is not the Corporation as such who is responsible for the delay
but the officers/agents handling the matters are responsible for the latitude
with which they have taken the entire exercise. The files clearly indicate
delay has occurred only on account of indifferent attitude of the officers
concerned in not showing the anxiety to take a final call in spite of huge
money being involved in the matter. Ultimately it would lead to defeat of
justice by causing delay only on account of impersonal manner in which
they dealt with the files. The victim is justice and the same cannot be
allowed. The deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the officers cannot
be a ground to sacrifice justice. In order to make the ends of justice meet
since large public interest is involved, we are of the opinion we have to take
a lenient view in the matter. Further we are of the opinion that there has to
be serious action against those persons who are responsible for the present
situation on account of absence of timely action. Such inaction of the
officers is to be curbed and the way we can express our displeasure is by
imposing costs while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We direct the
appellant/corporation to take action against those erring officials and also
to recover the costs imposed by us from those officers who are responsible
for the delay. They did not even bother to apply for certified copy of the
impugned order till February 2016.In the light of the above discussion and reasoning we allow the
application for condonation of delay being G.A. 973 of 2016 on payment of
cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice)
I agree.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
jb./as.
No comments:
Post a Comment