Monday, January 22, 2024

“Court must not treat the Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and the Government is under special obligation to ensure that the duties enshrined are properly performed” – Delhi High Court

 

Delhi High Court

04 August 2023

 

Court must not treat the Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and the Government is under special obligation to ensure that the duties enshrined are properly performed” – Delhi High Court

 

On 04.08.2023, Delhi High Court dismissed the application filed by the Delhi Government seeking restoration of a writ petition. Application was filed by the Delhi Government after delay of 691 days. Delhi Government tried to explain the delay on the ground that the case was dealt with by different panel advocates, engaged by the Delhi Government, at different points of time and, thus, the GNCTD was not aware that the writ petition has been dismissed in default. While dismissing the restoration application, the Delhi High Court observed as under: -

18. In the instant application, the petitioner has urged the grounds of frequent changes in the panel advocates which led to the dismissal of the matter due to non-prosecution as well as considerable delay in filing the application seeking restoration.

 

19. The petitioner though a State Department having numerous resources at its disposal, has still been unable to file the application of restoration in a timely manner. It is a well settled principle that the Government is under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence and commitment. The condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government Departments.

 

……

……

 

22. Hence, from the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the Court must not treat the Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and the Government is under special obligation to ensure that the duties enshrined are properly performed.

 

…..

…..

 

25. On perusal of the aforesaid order, as well as the averments made in the application seeking condonation delay in filing restoration application, it is apparent that the petitioner never had any intention to pursue the matter and had significantly delayed the matter in earlier hearings as well. The petitioner neither took steps to take recourse available, nor gave sufficient and reasonable explanation for such laxity on earlier occasions. This Court expresses its displeasure for such a state of affairs in the petitioner department and is not fully satisfied with the grounds taken by the petitioner for delay in filling the application seeking restoration.

 

26. In spite of the knowledge of the dismissal of the said petition due to non-appearance, the petitioner failed to file the application seeking restoration on time and chose to do so only after two years and as per its own convenience. The said situation can only be termed as non-seriousness of the petitioner department and the other parties cannot be left suffering and desolated. Therefore, this Court cannot accept the reasons provided for delay in filing the application when it is evident that there was dereliction of duty by the petitioner to comply with the orders of this Court on earlier occasions as well. Thus, the averments made in the application qua delay of 691 days cannot be classified as a reasonable delay in any manner.

 

27. The petitioner, being a Government agency, should act in a timely manner and justify the reasons for an inordinate delay, if any. It is a well-known fact that the red-tape in Government agencies sometimes leads to delays in filing applications, however, at the same time, the delay of 691 days without plausible justification cannot be permissible, as it also has the potential to open the floodgates for similar applications on such grounds.

 

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2024012217059330202023%20Del%20Single%20-%20KAMLA%20MEHNDIRATTA%20&%20ORS..pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

[Deptt. of Health, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Kamla Mehndiratta & Ors., CM APPL. No. 20019/2019, W.P. (C) No. 3613/2004, decided on 04.08.2023, Delhi High Court]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

No comments:

Post a Comment