Gujarat High Court Pulls Up Centre For "Lethargic Attitude" In Pursuing Litigation, Rejects Delayed Petition With Rs 25K Cost

In a stern stance, the Gujarat High Court has rejected with Rs. 25,000 an Article 227 petition filed by the Union of India and its Officers with more than two years' delay.

Justice S Umesh A. Trivedi and Rajendra M Sareen remarked it is a "classic example of sheer lethargic attitude and total disregard of Court proceedings by the petitioners."

The Court in its Order observed, “Any amount of extension or reading any paragraph from even additional affidavit cannot salvage the situation as not only the impugned orders which are challenged refusing the condonation of delay, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has come to be filed after more than two years delay by the petitioners, and therefore, this petition is required to be rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 04 (four) weeks from today.”

The respondent, who served as a Programme Executive (PEX) at the Regional Academy of Broadcasting & Multimedia (Programme) in Ahmedabad, had filed the aforementioned application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. However, the application was rejected due to lack of merit, although the respondent was instructed to cooperate with the ongoing proceedings.

Although an interim relief had been granted earlier in the Original Application, it was subsequently revoked. However, Centre (respondents in the Original Application) was directed to ensure that the proceedings were concluded promptly, within three months of receiving a copy of the Tribunal's order dated 07.07.2017.

Despite this directive, Centre failed to conclude the proceedings against the respondent within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, they requested an extension of time to complete the proceedings by filing an application. This request was granted by the Tribunal through an order dated 04.10.2018. Paragraph 6 of this order is particularly noteworthy and is quoted as follows:

“6. Taking note of submissions and backdrop fact of the six months' time is granted to conclude the departmental proceedings with rider that if on expiry of said period of six months also the departmental proceedings remains incomplete, for the reasons other than non-cooperation of applicant of OA, the same shall be deemed to be non-est w.e.f. the date on which period of six months is expired.”

Despite period of aforesaid six months concluded without raising any grievance about non-cooperation of the respondent – original applicant, Centre again moved an application praying for condonation of delay for a period of 2 years and 2 months and praying for extension of time of further six months to conclude the departmental proceedings.

Both the applications came to be rejected by the Tribunal stating that the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay, that the application for extension had been prepared by the concerned advocate but the same could not be circulated, is "really bizarre" .

At the same time, the application seeking further extension of six months time was also rejected on the ground that it was not tenable, in view of the fact that while granting extension in the year 2018, six months time was extended to conclude the departmental proceedings with rider that, "if on expiry of said period of six months also, the departmental proceedings remains incomplete, for the reasons other than non-cooperation of the applicant of OA, the same shall be deemed to be non-est w.e.f. the date on which period of six months is expired."

“Not only that, prayer for condonation of delay of two years and two months prayed before the Tribunal was rejected, petitioners further took more than two years time to challenge the very same order in filing the present SCA, which is a classic example of either deliberate delay or total callous approach with the Court proceedings demonstrated by the petitioners," the Court noted while rejecting the petition.

Appearance:Mrs Krishna G Rawal(1315) For The Petitioner(S) No. 1,2,3,4 For The Respondent(S) No. 1

Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 1399 Of 2024

Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Versus Dilip Wagheshwari S/O Danabhai Wagheshwari

LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 28

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement