Full Judgment
Order No.4 Dt. 04.03.14
Ld. Advocates appearing for both the Appellant and the Respondent having been heard on 24.02.14 on the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal under No. FA/1242/13, record is put up for passing order.What revealed from the petition for condonation of delay is as follows :
The impugned order being passed on 18.04.12, the Appellant sought for the opinion of the higher authority on 14.08.2013 and such opinion was obtained on 23.08.2013. Thereafter the Ministry of Law and Justice being approached vide letter dated 28.08.2013, gave their opinion on 06.09.2013. On 26.09.2013 the Appellant No.1 requested the Asst. Director of Postal Services (SB) , COWB, Circle Kolkata, 700 012 for engagement of Additional Standing Govt. Counsel. Accordingly, the Additional Standing Govt. Counsel was appointed by the Ministry of Law on 28.10.2013. The engagement letter was issued. The appeal was prepared on 15.11.13 and then filed on 20.11.2013.
The Appellants statement that the certified copy of the order was obtained on 19.11.12 is not, however, correct, in so far as the certified copy of the order impugned shows that the date of application for such certified copy was 18.11.13 and the date of delivery was 19.11.13.
It was argued by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant that the delay caused in filing the appeal was unavoidable as clearance from different authorities was necessary. Such delay was not intentional as the Departmental authorities have to take decision after having thorough knowledge of the facts of the case and legal points/implications involved, which took sometime. Relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 , Ld. Advocate of the Appellant argued that the length of delay is not as important as the merit of the case is . There are several formalities through which final clearance of the highest authority is obtained in filing of appeal. In the present case also, it took sometime to get the final clearance. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be admitted with condonation of delay which was unintentional and unavoidable.Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent / Complainant submitted that the delay was for more than one year and six months. The free copy of the order being served upon the OP/Appellant immediately after passing of the order dated 18.04.2012, there was no initiative on the part of the Appellant to apply for the certified copy of the order. Application for certified copy was made on 18.11.2013 and such copy was delivered on 19.11.2013. Ld. Advocate referred to the judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 wherein it has been held that while deciding an application in respect of 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 the Court is to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras and also relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 (2) CPR 306 (SC) , holding that Govt. Departments are under special obligations to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Govt employees. Unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay and there is bonafide effort , there is no need to accept usual explanation that file was kept pending for several months , years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.
We find from the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant that though the delay that took place during the period from 14.08.2013 to 18.11.2013 was for some procedural formalities, there is no explanation as to why the certified copy of the order was applied for and obtained at much later dates i.e., on 18.11.13 / 19.11.13 which was more than one year and six months from the date of passing of the order i.e., 18.04.2012. Such inordinate delay on the part of the Appellant is not justified and deserves to be dealt with strictly in terms of the provisions of law. Having placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as brought to hour notice by the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent , we do not accept the routine explanation for condonation of delay and do order that the prayer for condonation of delay, in the present case, be and the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.