Liberal Approach Be Taken Regarding Delay In Appeals Filed By State : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, recently (October 9), while deciding over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay observed that such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State.The Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta...
The Supreme Court, recently (October 9), while deciding over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay observed that such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State.
The Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta reiterated the well-settled that “a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below”.
The Judgment authored by Justice Datta, primarily relied upon the decision of Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa ((2003) 10 SCC 390) which in turn relied upon Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha ((1980) 2 SCC 593). In the latter case, the Apex Court has clearly held that “an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong”.
The present appeal was filed at the instance of certain affected landowners, challenging an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. By its impugned order, the High Court had allowed an application filed by the Union of India under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 condoning the delay of around 479 days in presentation of an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court mentioned under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pertinently, the Reference Court through its order had enhanced compensation payable to the landowners.
The limited issue that the Court was tasked to decide was, whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal. Needless to say, the Court also adjudicated whether the Union of India had shown sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period of limitation.
Contentions of the parties
At the outset, Senior advocate Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, while appearing for the appellant, pleaded that not only was there a delay of almost 6 months in applying for a certified copy of the order of the Reference Court, but also a delay of 10 months thence in filing the appeal after receipt of approval from the Principal Secretary (Land and Building). Sharma urged that such an explanation, should not be construed as a satisfactorily explained delay.
Over and above that, he contended that the High Court has plainly erred in condoning the delay without giving sufficient cause. Sharma pointed out that the reasons cited were not reasonable by any measure, and that the same were habitual unacceptable explanations meted out in such land acquisition matters to seek condonation of delay.
Per contra, Senior Advocate Sanjiv Sen, appearing for Union of India, urged the Apex Court not to disturb the findings in the impugned order since the High Court had, in judicious exercise of discretion, condoned the delay after satisfying itself as to the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay in presentation of the appeal.
Imperatively, Sen also sought to remind the Court of the impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology of government departments contributing to such delays. The delay in applying for the certified copy of the order of the Reference Court, according to him, was mainly due to unprofessional conduct of the concerned counsel. In view of the same, Sen that such conduct should not have any bearing to nip a meritorious claim of the Union of India in the bud.
Court's Observations
The Court after referring to the extensive thread of precedents, relevant in the present case, observed that “there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay.”
Notwithstanding the same, the Court reiterated that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
Differentiation between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'
Moving forward, the Court distinguished between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. It sated that an 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. It elaborated:
“Although people tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse' would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true.”
The Court also noted that the High Court has assigned several reasons in support of its order. Based on this, the Court was of the opinion that the discretion, exercised by the High Court, was not in an arbitrary manner. “The order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not.”
For the above observations, the Top Court derived its strength from the decision in State of Manipur & Ors. v. Koting Lamkang, (2019) 10 SCC 408, wherein the Court was of the view that the impersonal nature of the State's functioning should be given due regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nit-picked at the cost of collective interest.
“Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected.”
In the aforenoted background, the Court's verdict was that the High Court's decision to condone the delay does not suffer from any error warranting interference. Moreover, the Court opined that the hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865