REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2474-2475           OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7595-96 of 2011

Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.  .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.                       .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The following issues arise for consideration:

a) Whether the Office of the Chief Post Master General  

has  shown sufficient  cause  for  condoning  the  delay of  

427 days in filing SLPs before this Court.

Depending on the outcome of the above issue, other issues to  

be considered are:

1

b) Whether  the  impugned  advertisement  inserted  in  

the  Reader’s  Digest  issue  of  December,  2005  is  in  

conformity with the requirement of law.

c) Whether the Department has made out a case for  

interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India  

to  reopen  concurrent  findings  of  fact  rendered  by  the  

High Court.

3) These appeals have been filed against the common  

final judgment and order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the  

High Court of  Delhi  at  New Delhi  in LPA Nos. 418 and  

1006 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench while upholding  

the judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the  

learned  single  Judge  of  the  same  High  Court  in  Writ  

Petition (C) Nos. 22679-80 of 2005 and Writ Petition (C)  

No.  4985  of  2006  dismissed  the  appeals  filed  by  the  

appellants herein.   

4) Brief Facts:

(a) Living Media India Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 is a company  

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which publishes  

2

the  magazines  “Reader’s  Digest”  and  “India  Today”.  These  

magazines  are  registered  newspapers  vide  Registration  Nos.  

DL 11077/03-05 and DL 11021/01-05 respectively issued by  

the  Department  of  Posts,  Office  of  the  Chief  Post  Master  

General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi (in short ‘Postal Department’)-

appellant herein under the provisions of the Indian Post Office  

Act, 1898 (in short ‘the Act’) read with the Indian Post Office  

Rules, 1933 (in short ‘the Rules’)  and the Post Office Guide  

and are entitled for transmission by post under concessional  

rate of postage.   

(b)  On 14.10.2005, the Manager (Circulation), Living Media  

India Ltd., submitted an application to the Postal Department  

seeking permission to post December, 2005 issue of Reader’s  

Digest magazine containing the advertisement of Toyota Motor  

Corporation in the form of book-let with Calendar for the year  

2006  at  concessional  rates  in  New  Delhi.   By  letter  dated  

08.11.2005,  the  Postal  Department  denied  the  grant  of  

permission for mailing the said issue at concessional rates on  

the  ground that  the  book-let  containing  advertisement  with  

calendar is neither a supplement nor a part and parcel of the  

3

publication.  On 17.11.2005, the Director (Publishing), Living  

Media India once again submitted an application seeking the  

same  permission  which  was  also  denied  by  the  Postal  

Department by letter dated 21.11.2005.   

(c) In the same way, the Postal Department also refused to  

grant  concessional  rate  of  postage  to  post  the  issue  dated  

December 26,  2005 of  “India  Today’  magazine  containing  a  

book-let of Amway India Enterprises titled “Amway” vide their  

letters dated 18.02.2006 and 17.03.2006 stating that the said  

magazine  was  also  not  entitled  to  avail  the  benefit  of  

concessional rate available to registered newspapers.   

(d) Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the decision of the  

Postal  Department  filed  Writ  Petition  (C)  Nos.  22679-80  of  

2005 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4985 of 2006 before the High  

Court.  Learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated  

28.03.2007 allowed both the petitions filed by Respondent No.  

1 herein.   

(e) Being  aggrieved,  the  Postal  Department  filed  LPA Nos.  

418 and 1006 of 2007 before the High Court.  The Division  

Bench of  the High Court,  vide common final  judgment  and  

4

order dated 11.09.2009, while upholding the judgment of the  

learned single Judge, dismissed both the appeals. Challenging  

the  said  order,  the  Postal  Department  has  preferred  these  

appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

5) Heard  Mr.  H.  P.  Raval,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General for the appellants-Department of Posts and Mr. Soli J.  

Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

Delay in filing the SLPs:

6) Since  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  respondents  

seriously  objected  to  the  conduct  of  the  appellants  in  

approaching this Court after enormous and inordinate delay of  

427 days in filing the above appeals,  we intend to find out  

whether there is any “sufficient cause” for the condonation of  

such a huge delay.  In view of the fact that the application for  

condonation of delay in filing the SLPs dated 10.02.2011 does  

not  contain  acceptable  and plausible  reasons,  we permitted  

the  appellant-Postal  Department  to  file  a  better  affidavit  

explaining the reasons for the same.  Pursuant to the same,  

an affidavit  has  been filed  on 26.12.2011.   After  taking  us  

through  the  same,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

5

submitted that in view of series of decisions of this Court and  

the appellant being a Government Department, delay may be  

condoned and an opportunity may be given to put-forth their  

stand as to the impugned judgment of the High Court.   

7) Before  going  into  the  reasons  furnished  by  the  

Department for the delay, let us consider various decisions of  

this Court relied on by Mr. Raval, learned ASG.

i) In  Collector,  Land  Acquisition,  Anantnag  and  

Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, while  

considering “sufficient cause” in the light of Section 5 of the  

Limitation Act, 1963, this Court pointed out various principles  

for  adopting  liberal  approach  in  condoning  the  delay  in  

matters instituted in this Court.  Learned ASG heavily relied  

on the following principles:-

“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  

6

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.”

By showing the above principles, learned ASG submitted that  

there  is  no  warrant  for  according  step-motherly  treatment  

when the “State” is the applicant.  It is relevant to mention  

that in this case, the delay was only for four days.    

ii) In G. Ramegowda, Major and Others vs. Special Land  

Acquisition  Officer,  Bangalore,  (1988)  2  SCC  142,  the  

principles enunciated in paras 15 & 17 are heavily relied on by  

the learned ASG.  They are:-

“15. In litigations to which Government is a party there is  yet  another  aspect  which,  perhaps,  cannot  be  ignored.  If  appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults,  no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate  analysis,  suffers  is  public  interest.  The  decisions  of  Government are collective and institutional decisions and do  

7

not  share  the  characteristics  of  decisions  of  private  individuals.

 17. Therefore,  in  assessing  what,  in  a  particular  case,  constitutes “sufficient  cause”  for  purposes of  Section 5,  it  might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the  considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors  which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of  the  government.  Governmental  decisions  are  proverbially  slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of  procedural red tape in the process of their making.”

Considering  the  peculiar  facts,  namely,  the  change  of  

government  pleader  who had taken away  the  certified  copy  

after he ceases to be in office, the High Court condoned the  

delay which was affirmed by this Court.

iii) In  State of Haryana vs.  Chandra Mani and Others,  

(1996) 3 SCC 132, while condoning the delay of 109 days in  

filing the LPA before the High Court, this Court has observed  

that  certain  amount  of  latitude  within  reasonable  limits  is  

permissible  having  regard to  impersonal  bureaucratic  setup  

involving  red-tapism.   In  the  same  decision,  this  Court  

directed the State to constitute legal cells to examine whether  

any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or  

whether cases required adjustment at governmental level.   

8

iv) In State of U.P. and Others vs.  Harish Chandra and  

Others,  (1996)  9  SCC  309,  by  giving  similar  reasons,  as  

mentioned  in  Chandra  Mani’s  case  (supra) this  Court,  

condoned the delay of 480 days in filing the SLP.    

v) In  National  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. vs.  Giga  Ram and  

Others, (2002) 10 SCC 176, this Court, after finding that the  

High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of  

the facts and refusing to condone the delay, accepted the case  

of the appellant-Insurance Company by protecting the interest  

of the claimant and condoned the delay.  It is relevant to point  

out that while accepting the stand of the Insurance Company  

for the delay, this Court has safeguarded the interest of the  

claimant also.

vi) In State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao and Others, (2005)  

3  SCC 752,  this  Court,  while  reiterating  the  principle  that  

latitude be given to government’s litigation, allowed the appeal  

filed by the State of Nagaland.  It is also relevant to note here  

that this matter relates to criminal jurisdiction and delay in  

filing the SLP was only 57 days.   

9

8) Though the learned ASG heavily relied on the above said  

decisions and the principles laid down, on going through all  

the factual details, we are of the view that there is no quarrel  

about the propositions inferred therein.  However, considering  

the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, this Court  

either  condoned the  delay  or  upheld  the  order  of  the  High  

Court condoning the delay in filing appeal by the State.  While  

keeping  those  principles  in  mind,  let  us  consider  the  

reasonings placed by the Postal Department with regard to the  

same.

9) In view of the stand taken by the Postal Department as to  

the  reasons for  the  delay and the  serious objections of  the  

respondents, it is desirable to extract the entire statement as  

placed in the  form of  “better  affidavit”  by the  officer  of  the  

appellant-Department:-

“I, Aparajeet Pattanayak presently posted as SSRM, Air Mail  Sorting Division, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and  state as under:- 1) In  the  official  capacity  mentioned  above,  I  am  acquainted with the  facts  of  the  case on the basis  of  the  information derived from the record.

2) On the last date of hearing i.e. 05.12.2011 this Hon’ble  Court was pleased to allow the petitions to file better affidavit  in  support  of  the  application  for  condonation  of  delay  in  filing Special Leave Petition.

10

3) It is submitted that the delay is not intentional but is  on account  of  the departmental/administrative  procedures  involved in for filing the petition for Special Leave Petition.  It  is  submitted  that  unlike  the  private  litigant  the  matters  relating  to  government  are  required  to  be  considered  at  various levels and then only a decision is taken.

4) In  the  present  case  it  would  be  evident  from  the  following  that  delay  has  been  caused  due  to  unavoidable  circumstances:-

11.09.2009 Date of judgment in LPA Nos. 418/2007  and 1006/2007.

29.10.2009 Certified  copy  of  judgment  not  received  from the Government counsel and hence  copy  of  judgment  was  downloaded  from  the web site of Delhi High Court and office  note was put by ASP (Court) proposing to  refer  the matter  to Postal Directorate for  opinion  and further  course  of  action  for  approval of the Chief Postmaster General,  Delhi.

12.11.2009 Chief Postmaster General Delhi approved  to refer the matter to Directorate.

16.12.2009 Directorate desired to submit legal opinion  and certified copy of judgment.  

08.01.2010 The  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  had  applied  for  the  certified  copy of the impugned judgment and order  and  the  same  was  received  by  the  Department on 08.01.2010.

11.01.2010 The  desired  documents  supplied  to  Directorate.

25.01.2010 Directorate  desired  to  submit  copies  of  original  writ  petition  filed  by  the  party,  counter affidavit thereto, copies of appeals  filed by DOP & counter reply thereto.

11

12.02.2010 The  desired  documents  supplied  to  Directorate.

17.02.2010 Directorate  desired  to  send  an  official/officer  well  conversant  with  the  case.

15.03.2010 Directorate asked to depute an officer well  conversant with the case to collect the UO  Note  along  with  other  documents  to  pursue  the  matter  with  Mr.  Suresh  Chandra Additional Legal Advisor.

06.04.2010 Shri  Suresh  Chandra,  Additional  Legal  Advisor was contacted on 06.04.2010 and  the matter was briefed thoroughly by ASP  (Court).  

25.06.2010 Case  file  collected  from  Directorate  and  handed over to Central Agency Section on  25.06.2010  under  diary  No.  1865/2010  dated  25.06.2010  as  per  advice  of  Additional Legal Advisor.  

26.06.2010 to Central Agency Section sent the file back 30.06.2010 to the  Postal  Department  with  

directions  to  send  the  same  through  Ministry of Law and Justice.

01.07.2010 to After  receiving  the  file  through  proper  10.09.2010 channel.  Central Agency Section sent   

the file to Ld ASG for his considered  opinion  and  Ld.  Additional  Solicitor  General opined that it is a fit case for filing  the Special Leave Petition.  

11.09.2010 to On receiving the opinion of  Ld.  ASG the  30.09.2010 file was sent to Central Agency for  

drafting the Special Leave Petition.

01.10.2010 Directorate  informed  that  ASG  had  considered  the  case  and  found  it  fit  for  Special Leave Petition.  

15.11.2010 The  panel  counsel  prepared  the  draft  of  Special  Leave Petition and submitted the  

12

draft  Special  Leave  Petition  with  file  to  Central Agency Section for further steps.  The  draft  Special  Leave  Petition  was  forwarded to  the  Department  by  Central  Agency Section for vetting.  

After factual verification, the draft Special  Leave  Petition  was  returned  to  Central  Agency Section for typing and preparation  of Paper Book which also took some time.

04.01.2011 Special  Leave  Petition  remained  pending  due  to  non-availability  of  disputed  magazines  of  Reader’s  Digest  and  India  Today.   Hence,  ASG  was  requested  to  intervene  and  direct  Shri  Akash  Pratap  who  handled  the  case  to  provide  the  magazines.  

14.01.2011 Shri  A.K.  Sharma  was  requested  to  arrange  to  collect  the  above  magazines  from the record of Delhi High Court.

31.01.2011 SSRM  Delhi  Sorting  Division  was  authorized to sign the affidavit on behalf  of the respondent.  

10.02.2011 Special  Leave  Petition  filed  in  Supreme  Court.

5. It  is  submitted that  it  is  evident  from the  foregoing  reasons that the delay caused in filing the petition was result  of all  the necessary and unavoidable office formalities and  was  bonafide  and  not  deliberate  or  intentional  and  the  petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the  petition within the period of limitation.  

6. It  is  further  submitted  that  the  petitioner  humbly  seeks leave to draw the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court  to  the  views  expressed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court  that  liberal  approach may be  adopted and that  the  Court  should  not  take too strict and pedantic stand which will cause injustice  while considering the application for condonation of delay, in  terms  of  its  judgments  in  the  case  of  Collector  Land  Acquisition,  Anantnag  &  Anr.  Vs.  Mst.  Katiji  &  Ors.  and  Bhag Singh & Anr.  Vs.  Major  Daljeet  Singh & Ors.   It  is  

13

submitted that the principles for condonation of delay laid  down in the above cited cases may therefore be adopted in  the present case also.  

7. This Hon’ble Court in G. Ramegowda Vs. Special Land  Acquisition  Officer,  (1998)  2  SCC 142 laid  down that  the  expression sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act,  1963 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance  substantial justice where no gross negligence or deliberate  inaction of lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking  condonation of delay.  

8. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani,  reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, this Hon’ble Court observed  and laid down as follows:-

“when  the  State  is  an  applicant,  praying  for  condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on  account  of  impersonal  machinery  and  the  inherited  bureaucratic  methodology  imbued  with  the  note-  making,  file-pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos,  delay  on  the  part  of  the  State  is  less  difficult  to  understand  but  more  difficult  to  approve,  but  the  State represents collective cause of the community.  It  is  axiomatic  that  decisions  are  taken  by  officers/agencies  proverbially  at  slow  pace  and  encumbered process of pushing the files from table to  table and keeping it on the table for considerable time  causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine.  Considerable  delay  of  procedural  red-tape  in  the  process of their making decision is a common feature.  Therefore,  certain  amount  of  latitude  is  not  impermissible.  If the appeals brought by the State are  lost for such default, no person is individually affected  but  what  in  the  ultimate  analysis  suffers,  is  public  interest.   The  expression  “sufficient  cause”  should,  therefore,  be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection  of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay.

9. This Hon’ble Court in Union of India vs. Manager, Jain  and Associates,  2001 (3)  SCC 277 decided on 06.02.2011  has held that delay ought to be condoned when sufficiently  explained particularly  where  party  seeking  condonation  is  the Government.   It  is  further submitted that the Hon’ble  High Court ought to have condoned the delay in considering  

14

the public revenue involved and also because of the genuine  difficulties  and  circumstances  beyond  the  control  of  the  petitioner, on account of which Special Leave Petition could  not be filed within the time.”  

10) Before  considering  whether  the  reasons  for  justifying  

such a huge delay are acceptable or not, it is also useful to  

refer the decisions relied on by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned  

senior counsel for the respondents.

i) In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay vs. Amateur  

Riders Club,  Bombay,  1994 Supp (2)  SCC 603,  there  is  a  

delay of  264 days in filing the SLP by the Commissioner of  

Wealth Tax, Bombay.  The explanation for the delay had been  

set out in petitioner’s own words as under:

“…..2  (g)  The  Advocate-on-Record  got  the  special  leave  petition  drafted  from  the  drafting  Advocate  and  sent  the  same for approval to the Board on June 24, 1993 along with  the case file.

(h)  The  Board  returned  the  case  file  to  the  Advocate-on- Record on July 9, 1993 who re-sent the same to the Board  on September 20, 1993 requesting that draft SLP was not  approved by the Board. The Board after approving the draft  SLP sent this file to CAS on October 1, 1993.”

After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused  

to condone the delay by observing thus:  

“3. … …. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds  everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief.  It is  true that  Government should not  be treated as any other  

15

private  litigant  as,  indeed,  in  the  case  of  the  former  the  decisions  to  present  and  prosecute  appeals  are  not  individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged  down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this  also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for  the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude  of  indifference  of  the  Revenue  in  protecting  its  common  interests.  The  affidavit  is  again  one  of  the  stereotyped  affidavits  making  it  susceptible  to  the  criticism  that  the  Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need  for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.

[Emphasis supplied]

ii) In  Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs.  Executive  

Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17  

SC 448, the question was whether the respondent-Executive  

Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause  

to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the  

High Court.  In para 17, this Court held:

“…..The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right  for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire  into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay  defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and  “do not slumber over their rights”.

After  referring  various  earlier  decisions,  taking  very  lenient  

view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the  

Government  and  Government  Undertaking,  this  Court  

observed as under:-

“29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for  fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing  

16

a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.  They  are  meant  to  see  that  the  parties  do  not  resort  to  dilatory  tactics  but  avail  their  legal  remedies  promptly.  Salmond in his  Jurisprudence states that the laws come to  the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

30. Public  interest  undoubtedly  is  a  paramount  consideration in exercising  the  courts'  discretion wherever  conferred upon it  by  the relevant  statutes.  Pursuing stale  claims  and  multiplicity  of  proceedings  in  no  manner  subserves  public  interest.  Prompt  and  timely  payment  of  compensation  to  the  landlosers  facilitating  their  rehabilitation/resettlement  is  equally  an  integral  part  of  public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the  beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be  allowed to indulge in any act  to  unsettle  the settled legal  rights  accrued  in  law  by  resorting  to  avoidable  litigation  unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which  they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner.  One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is  not  the  land  but  the  livelihood  of  the  landlosers.  These  public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the  courts  while  exercising  the  discretion  dealing  with  the  application  filed  under  Section  5  of  the  Limitation  Act.  Dragging  the  landlosers  to  courts  of  law  years  after  the  termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public  interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by  condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper  explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of  public revenue. It serves no public interest.”

11) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in  

the  “better  affidavit”  sworn  by  Mr.  Aparajeet  Pattanayak,  

SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi.  It is relevant to  

note  that  in  the  said  affidavit,  the  Department  has  itself  

mentioned and is aware of  the date of  the judgment of  the  

Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of  

2007 as 11.09.2009.  Even according to the deponent, their  

17

counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment  

only  on  08.01.2010  and  the  same  was  received  by  the  

Department on the very same day.  There is no explanation for  

not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on  

11.09.2009 or  at  least  within  a  reasonable  time.   The  fact  

remains  that  the  certified  copy  was  applied  only  on  

08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.  In spite  

of  affording  another  opportunity  to  file  better  affidavit  by  

placing  adequate  material,  neither  the  Department  nor  the  

person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the  

certified copy within the prescribed period.  The other dates  

mentioned in the affidavit  which we have already extracted,  

clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except  

mentioning  the  dates of  receipt  of  the  file  and the  decision  

taken,  there  is  no  explanation  as  to  why  such  delay  had  

occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the  

delay  was  due  to  unavoidable  circumstances  and  genuine  

difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department  

or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in  

18

prosecuting  the  matter  to  this  Court  by  taking  appropriate  

steps.   

12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well  

aware  or  conversant  with  the  issues  involved  including  the  

prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way  

of filing a special leave petition in this Court.   They cannot  

claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the  

Department was possessed with competent  persons familiar  

with  court  proceedings.   In  the  absence  of  plausible  and  

acceptable  explanation,  we  are  posing  a  question  why  the  

delay  is  to  be  condoned  mechanically  merely  because  the  

Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.  

Though  we  are  conscious  of  the  fact  that  in  a  matter  of  

condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or  

deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has  

to be adopted to  advance substantial  justice,  we are of  the  

view  that  in  the  facts  and  circumstances,  the  Department  

cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.  The claim  

on  account  of  impersonal  machinery  and  inherited  

bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be  

19

accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and  

available.  The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody  

including the Government.   

13) In  our  view,  it  is  the  right  time  to  inform  all  the  

government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that  

unless they have  reasonable  and acceptable  explanation for  

the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to  

accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for  

several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural  

red-tape  in  the  process.   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.   The  law  shelters  

everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for  

the benefit of a few.  Considering the fact that there was no  

proper  explanation offered by  the  Department  for  the  delay  

except  mentioning  of  various  dates,  according  to  us,  the  

Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and  

cogent  reasons  sufficient  to  condone  such  a  huge  delay.  

20

Accordingly,  the  appeals  are  liable  to  be  dismissed  on  the  

ground of delay.  

14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to  

go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c).  The question of law  

raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.  In the  

light  of  the  above  discussion,  the  appeals  fail  and  are  

dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.   

...…………….…………………………J.          (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

….…....…………………………………J.   (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 24, 2012.             

21