Routine Explanation Not Enough For Condonation Of Delay: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has observed that, in condonation of delay please, routine explanation is not enough, but a reasonable and acceptable explanation is very much necessary.

The bench of Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering the appeal filed by University of Delhi against the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground of delay of 916 days.

Referring to the decisions in this regard, the bench said that a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. But, it also added that condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. It said that though every day's delay need not be explained with such precision but a reasonable and acceptable explanation is very much necessary. It observed thus:

"The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even­ handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating "sufficient cause" to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 per cent. "

In this case, the explanation for the inordinate delay of 916 days was (1) the non­availability of the ViceChancellor due to retirement and subsequent appointment of new Vice­Chancellor, (2) the matter was placed before the Executive Council and a decision was taken to file the appeal and the said process had caused the delay. The bench said that these reasons do not appear very convincing. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

[Read Judgment]