Limitation | In This Age Of Electronic Communication, Govt Can't Take Advantage Of Inherited Bureaucratic Methodology To Justify Delay: Gauhati HC
story
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India against an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay in filing an arbitration appeal under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The government had argued that the delay was due to official communication as its headquarters is situated outside of the State of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.The...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India against an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay in filing an arbitration appeal under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The government had argued that the delay was due to official communication as its headquarters is situated outside of the State of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
The High Court noted that the law of limitation binds everybody, including the Government. Therefore, the Government, its various agencies and instrumentalities are not entitled to privilege in matter of condonation of delay due to procedural red tapism in the process, at least at this age of electronic communication.
"Law is already settled that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. In a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, but the Government Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions at least in this age of electronic communication. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. In Postmaster General's case (supra), the Supreme court has held that 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 bona fide 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 High Court referred to Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, whereby the Apex Court held that departments cannot take advantage of the liberal concession approach adopted in matters of condonation of delay. Claims of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methods are not acceptable at this age of modern technology.
The Apex Court held that unless the government bodies have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few" the Top Court had said.
In this vein, the High Court held that the government has failed to explain the reasons for delay in a satisfactory manner.
Therefore, arbitration appeal was found to be devoid of merit and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case No: Arb.A./5/2019
Case Name : Union of India v. M/s Tenzing Construction
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 11
Date : 18-01-2022
Judge : Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia