State Doesn't Have Vested Right To File Belated Appeal Without Explaining Reasons, Diligence Expected In Its Functioning: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently reinforced that government departments, despite their complex nature, are not entitled to special leniency when it comes to condoning delays. The court clarified that only bona fide and unintentional delays can be excused, and the State must demonstrate diligence and commitment in its functioning.
In dismissing an application on the part of the State seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganderbal Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“...the applicant/appellant has been unable to properly explain the delay of 927 days in filing the appeal against the judgement of acquittal. Although the courts generally tend to take a lenient view in the matter of excusing delay in filing the appeals when it comes to the State and its functionaries, having regard to the impersonal nature of the functioning of the State, yet the State does not have a vested right to file the appeal at a belated stage, without properly explaining the reasons for the delay”
Background:
The case in question stemmed from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir's appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, on 25th September 2018, involving one Mohammad Yasin Mir. The appellant, represented by Mr. Satinder Singh Kala (AAG), sought the court's permission to condone a delay of 927 days in filing the appeal against Mir's acquittal. The delay arose from administrative and procedural missteps, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The appellant, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. They attributed the delay to the time-consuming internal processes of obtaining sanction for filing the appeal, with the sanction order getting misplaced and sent to the wrong official. It was only during a review meeting in June 2021 that the mistake came to light. They also claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic further delayed their efforts to file the appeal.
Counsel for the respondent Mr. Umar Rashid Wani opposed the application argued that the delay was inexcusable and that by the time the pandemic occurred, the limitation period had already expired.
“The fact that the officers/officials of the appellant-State lost track of the sanction granted by the Law Department speaks volumes about the negligence and lack of due diligence on the part of the functionaries of the appellant-State….This shows that the applicant/ appellant-UT was not only negligent in pursuing the remedy of appeal against the judgement of acquittal, but it was also guilty of indifference in dealing with the case”, the court remarked.
The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Post-Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), which held that government departments have a special obligation to perform their duties diligently and with commitment. It was emphasized that the law applies equally to all, and the State cannot expect preferential treatment based on its bureaucratic processes.
While the court expressed some understanding regarding the delay up until the date of the sanction, it noted that beyond this, there was no reasonable explanation for the subsequent delay. Justice Dhar emphasized that not every delay must be condoned simply because the applicant is the State. Government functionaries, despite their impersonal nature, are not entitled to indefinitely file appeals without providing proper justification for any delays, the bench underscored.
Furthermore, the court also dismissed the argument that the pandemic impeded the filing of the appeal, stating that the appellant was unaware of the sanction order long before the pandemic began, and thus the pandemic was irrelevant to the delay.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. As a result, the appeal against the acquittal was also dismissed.
Case Title: UT Through Police Station Ganderbal Vs Mohammad Yasin Mir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 266
Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel appeared for UT of J&K, Mr. Umar Rashid Wani, Advocate represented the respondents.