Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy Engineer, Public Works Department, Sangli, filed an application for condonation of delay of 154 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned single Judge dated 8th/21st September, 2010, which had dismissed the State's writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The respondent, Vijay Gangaram Kamble, was a workman represented by a trade union. The State contended that the delay occurred because time was consumed in obtaining the opinion of the Government Counsel and then seeking sanction from the Law and Judiciary Department. The certified copy of the order was applied for after about 25 days and was ready on 28th October, 2010. Legal opinion was sought on 15th December, 2010, after the limitation period had expired, and was received on 5th January, 2011. Sanction was accorded on 4th March, 2011. The Court observed that the limitation period for filing a Letters Patent Appeal is 30 days, and the State showed a casual approach, taking no steps within the limitation period. The Court noted that opinion could have been sought even on the basis of an authenticated copy without waiting for the certified copy. The Court held that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause and that condoning such delay would make the law of limitation a casualty, ultimately affecting the tax payer and public exchequer. The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The State sought condonation of 154 days delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal, citing time consumed in obtaining legal opinion and sanction. The Court held that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause, as the State showed a casual approach and failed to act within the limitation period. The application was dismissed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 154 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned on the grounds stated by the applicant State.
Final Decision
Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the respondent.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5
- Casual approach of State
- Public exchequer
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 38
Civil Application No. 110 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal St. No. 9126 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 232 of 1999
P.B. Majmudar, A.A. Sayed
Mr. A.D. Kango for applicant, Mr. P.C. Kansara for respondent
State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Engineer, Public Works Department, SubDivision, Sangli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application for condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal against order of single Judge dismissing writ petition challenging Labour Court award.
Remedy Sought
State sought condonation of 154 days delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal.
Filing Reason
Delay occurred due to time consumed in obtaining legal opinion and sanction from Law and Judiciary Department.
Previous Decisions
Learned single Judge dismissed writ petition on 8th/21st September, 2010.
Issues
Whether the delay of 154 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned on the grounds stated by the applicant State.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant State argued that delay was due to time taken in obtaining opinion of Government Counsel and sanction from Law and Judiciary Department.
Respondent argued that the State showed casual approach and delay should not be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi
The explanation of the State for delay does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the State showed a casual approach and failed to take timely steps. Condoning such delay would defeat the law of limitation and burden the public exchequer.
Judgment Excerpts
In our view, in most of the matters, a casual approach is shown by the concerned department of the State in taking expeditious steps in the matter of filing appeals.
Once the period of limitation is prescribed, it is expected of the concerned authorities to seek opinion within the period of limitation and the process must start to get the opinion from the concerned department immediately.
Procedural History
Labour Court award challenged by State in Writ Petition No. 232 of 1999. Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 8th/21st September, 2010. State applied for certified copy on 13th October, 2010, ready on 28th October, 2010. Legal opinion sought on 15th December, 2010, received on 5th January, 2011. Sanction obtained on 4th March, 2011. Letters Patent Appeal filed with delay of 154 days. Present application for condonation filed.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
