'Sufficient Cause' In Limitation Act Can't Be Liberally Construed For Govt Departments : J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally construed just because a government department is seeking condonation of delay.The court emphasized that government departments are equally bound by the law of limitation and must provide cogent and plausible explanations for delays.Justice Javed...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally construed just because a government department is seeking condonation of delay.
The court emphasized that government departments are equally bound by the law of limitation and must provide cogent and plausible explanations for delays.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani made these observations while dismissing an application seeking condonation of a 65-day delay in filing a review petition by the Union of India.
Background of the Case:
Justice Wanu was hearing a Review petition which arose from a writ petition filed by Jagjeet Kour, seeking a compassionate appointment following the death of her husband, an employee of the Union of India. The single bench of the High Court had directed the Union to offer compassionate appointment to Kour within four weeks. The Union sought to challenge this order through a review petition, but filed it 65 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
The Union argued that the delay was caused due to administrative processes, including record collection, legal advice, and inter-departmental consultations. They further contended that government departments should be given more leeway in matters of condonation of delay.
Courts Observations:
After scrutinising the application seeking condonation of delay the court emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, even in cases involving government departments. The bench referred to several precedents, including the pivotal case of "P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala," highlighting the necessity for a sufficient and plausible cause for condoning delays.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the explanation provided in the application, Justice Wani stated that it lacked specificity regarding when the order was received, when the matter was considered at various levels, and when legal advice was sought and obtained. The court noted that the explanation presented was neither plausible nor sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay.
“The explanation offered in the application per-se is casual and cryptic and even the affidavit accompanying the application in support thereof is having filled in blanks and manifestly a stereotype one”, the court recorded.
In light of the court's observations, the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the consequent dismissal of the accompanying Review Petition.
Case Title: Union of India Vs Jagjeet Kour.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 328