S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. The facts mentioned hereinafter indicate a sorry state of affairs in matters in which huge stakes are involved and the revenue is lost on account of sheer negligence on the part of the Government in not taking steps to explain the delay of 20 days for more than three years. Even objections raised by the Office of this Court have not been removed for unduly long period despite the fact that Government was directed as far back as 26-2-1990 by the Supreme Court to explain the delay. In the process, it is the revenue which has suffered. The facts indicative of the callousness are as follows :
(a) On 16th June 1976, the Central Government issued a Notification No. 198 of 1976 under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, giving substantial relief to various products including tyres and tubes. The Notification was to remain in force till 31st March 1979.
(b) By Notification No. 141 of 1978 issued by the Central Government on 14th July 1978, the product in question, viz. tyres and tubes, came to be deleted.
(c) In the circumstances, on 10th October 1978, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1424 of 1978 came to be filed by Ceat Tyres (the original Petitioner) in this Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of Notification No. 141 of 1978.
(d) By judgment and order dated 17th July 1987, the learned single Judge of this Court (Suresh, J. as he then was) allowed Miscellaneous Petition No. 1424 of 1978 in favour of the original petitioner-company - Ceat Tyres of India.
(e) Certified copy of the said order dated 17th July 1987 became ready for delivery on 29th August, 1987.
(f) On 5th May 1988, the Union of India, herein being Review-petitioner preferred Appeal Lodging No. 714A of 1988 against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17th July 1987. There was a delay of approximately 293 days on the part of the Central Government in preferring the above Appeal. In the circumstances, as required under Rule 41 read with Rule 47 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, the Central Government preferred Notice of Motion No. 2908 of 1988 seeking condonation of delay of 293 days in preferring the above Appeal Lodging No. 714A of 1988.
(g) On 11th January 1989, the Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Kantharia, J.) was a party, dismissed the Appeal on the ground of gross delay. The then Division Bench found that there was delay at every stage of the matter. The then Division Bench also observed that its order may enable the parties to defraud the exchequer for which the Ministry of Law and the Excise Department ought to thank themselves. These observations are required to be mentioned because even as of date, the same position continues and despite opportunity being given to the Central Government by the Supreme Court, as stated hereinafter, the same cavalier attitude on the part of the Central Government continues.
(h) Against the said order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th January 1989, the Department preferred S.L.P. to the Supreme Court.
(i) On 26th February 1990, the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the S.L.P. preferred by the Central Government. However, liberty was given to the Central Government to move this Court for review after filing a proper affidavit explaining the delay.
(j) On 1st March 1990, the certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was collected by the original petitioners - Ceat Tyres.
(k) On 10th May 1990, the Central Government lodged in the office of the Original Side of this Court, the above mentioned Review Petition. The said Review Petition did not explain the delay in filing the Review Petition. Even the number of days by which delay had taken place in filing the Review Petition was not explained. The Review Petition indicates that it was drafted in a casual manner. It does not explain or give any details as to when the Central Government had applied for certified copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
(l) On 14th May 1990, the office on the Original Side of this Court raised 7 objections, which are as follows :
(i) Index is not submitted.
(ii) Page number is not given.
(iii) Ex. 'A' is incomplete - see page 8.
(iv) N/M No. blank in affidavit in support.
(v) How the Review Petition is in time.
(vi) One extra ledger paper is not annexed.
All the objections were required to be removed as early as possible so that the Review Petition could be numbered. But that was not done for more than 3 years. Till then, the Review Petition remained unnumbered. In fact, on 10th May 1991, the attorneys for the original petitioners - Ceat Tyres, wrote to the advocates for the Union of India informing them that despite the fact that the Review Petition was lodged on 10th May 1990, the same had not been served to them.
(m) On 24th June 1992, the Review Petitioners removed two other office objections. At this stage, it may be mentioned that although the Review Petition was solemnly declared on 10th May 1990, it was not duly signed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Hi. This was one of the office objections and it took more than two years for the Officer to come to the Court and sign the Review Petition which was done on 27th July 1992.
(n) On 30th August 1993, the Review Petitioner filed the present Notice of Motion together with the affidavit dated 6th August 1993 for condonation of delay. This Motion was filed after 3 years and 3 months. The Government took 3 years and 3 months to remove the office objection. The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion dated 6th August 1993 also does not give any explanation as to why the said application was not made earlier. No facts have been disclosed as to why the objection was not removed for three years. Even material facts were suppressed. Paragraph 1 of the affidavit dated 6th August 1993 states that the Review Petition was filed on 10th May 1990 and that the office had raised queries as to how the Review Petition is in time. Despite the said statement, it was not explained as to when the office objections came to be raised. It is only subsequently when this Court directed the Government to file fresh affidavit indicating the date on which the objections were raised that an affidavit is now filed on 10th November 1993 stating that the office objections were raised on 14th May 1990. Similarly, totally false statements have been made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 6th August 1993 which reads as follows:
'The application for certified copy was made on 18-1-1989 and the same was obtained on 29-3-1990. It is submitted that the Review Petition is in time.'The order of the then Division Bench of this Court was passed on 11th January 1989 and the certified copy thereof was ready on 20th April 1989 and not on 21st March 1990. Mr. Mehta for the Department now concedes that it is a mistake.
2. Despite the above discrepancies, we thought that since huge stakes were involved in the matter, one more opportunity should be given to the Government to explain the delay. In the circumstances, they have filed an affidavit on 4th November 1993. Once again, no explanation was given as to when the objections were raised by the office and why were they not removed for more than 3 years. One more opportunity was further given by us and now an affidavit has been filed on 10th November 1993 by Nandkumar Shantaram Nagvekar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise. In the said affidavit dated 10th November 1993, we are now informed for the first time that the office raised 6 to 7 objections on 14th May 1990 as stated above. Surprisingly, in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it is stated that the Ministry of Law and Justice was not aware that the Review Petition was under objection and, therefore, it was not numbered. This is a false statement, particularly in view of the fact that as stated hereinabove, a specific letter was addressed to the advocates for the Central Government as far back as 10th May 1991 drawing their attention to the fact that the Review Petition No. 640 of 1990, which was a lodging number, was not duly numbered and served. We are surprised that when the Apex Court directed the Central Government to file a Review Petition, after filing proper affidavit and pursuant to which Review Petition was filed on 10th May 1990, the Central Government states that they were not aware as to why the Petition continued to be under objection. In the affidavit no factual basis has been given as to what steps they took to remove the objections. Secondly, it may be mentioned that in the affidavit dated 10th November 1993, it is admitted that the Central Government came to know for the first time in March 1992 that the Review Petition was under office objection. Be that as it may, despite the above facts, the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay has been taken out on 30t August 1993. The above facts indicate a sad commentary on how the Government works even when huge stakes are involved and even when the Apex Court and this Court have given them opportunities to remove the office objections. According to the Government, there is delay of only 20 days in taking out the Review Petition. But, it has taken more than 3 years to explain the said delay, which also has not been done. Even the Cause Title of this Notice of Motion is not typed in a proper manner.
3. Before concluding our order, we would like to mention one more mis-statement of fact in the affidavit dated 10th November 1993. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as follows :
'... The said Notice of Motion was made returnable before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurdukar and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jhunjhunwala on 17th September, 1993, however Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kantharia and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kapadia on 27-10-1993.'
The above-quoted portion of paragraph 8 also does not reflect the correct position. The present Notice of Motion came to be assigned to the present Division Bench by the learned Chief Justice on 16th September 1993 in view of the fact that this Motion is taken out in the Review Petition filed by the Central Government of the order of the then Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Kantharia, J.) was a party. In the circumstances and in accordance with the Rules of this Court, the matter came to be assigned to the present Division Bench. Realising the above difficulty, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Government made an oral statement that the above paragraph has also been stated by mistake. The above circumstances show that in the present matter each and every affidavit filed by the Government are not only full of mistakes and suppression of facts, but even mis-statement of facts, which cannot be condoned.
4. In the present matter, as stated hereinabove, we find that the Central Government has functioned in a cavalier manner. They have disobeyed the order of the Supreme Court by not filing the affidavit, as directed. No steps whatsoever have been taken to remove office objections. There was no effective filing of the Review Petition and in the process, the exchequer has suffered. It is true that in matters of condonation of delay, Courts should adopt liberal approach and treatment similar to any other litigant ought to be accorded to the Government [see Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, reported in : (1987)ILLJ500SC ], but that does not mean that the Courts shall show undue latitude to the Government, particularly in the cases of the present nature where the delay in not removing the office objections extends beyond 3 years. One more fact may be mentioned that it has been repeatedly argued and even mentioned in affidavits that since the Central Government has to deal with a large number of matters, they should be shown latitude in such matters. In the present case, there is no merit in the said contention for the reason that the Supreme Court had given liberty to the Government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the delay, as far back as on 26th February 1990, and yet no steps were taken whatsoever even to remove the office objections which were raised on 14th May 1990 and since then the matter continued to remain on the Lodging number. On the other hand, in the affidavit dated 10th November 1993, the office of this Court is sought to be blamed.
5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the Notice of Motion No. 1842 of 1993. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed with costs. Consequently, the Review Petition bearing Lodging No. 640 of 1990, shall also stand dismissed.