It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of “Sab Chalta Hain” attitude of the governments in India. This alone explains why it has now decided to punish with penalty whenever there is unwarranted and unacceptable delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Needless to say, this alone explains why most recently on December 18, 2020, the Supreme Court has minced no words to state it upfront that government cannot operate like limitation does not apply to it. Once again deprecating the practice of the government moving the Court belatedly only by way of formality, the Apex Court on December 18, 2020 has imposed costs of Rs 15000 to be recovered from the officers responsible for 462 days delay in filing the SLP. The Bench then dismissed the petition as barred by time and imposed cost of Rs 15000/- on the petitioner for wastage of judicial time. The Bench minced no words to hold that, “We put it to the learned counsel that the cost would have been much greater but for the fact that a young counsel is appearing before us and we have given considerable concession in the costs on that factor alone.”
To start with, the ball is set rolling by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy of the Apex Court by first and foremost observing that, “The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 462 days. This is one more case which we have categorized as a “certificate cases” filed before this Court to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who have been throughout negligent in defending a litigation!” There certainly can be no excuse for such inordinate delay and that too by officers who represent the government!
While elaborating further, the Bench then goes on to observe in the next para stating that, “The respondent(s) filed a suit in 1977 before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao against the petitioner calming ownership rights to property known as “Aforamento Perpeto” situated at Verlem of Sanguem Taluka. The prayer was made for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner but it appears that the written statement was filed only in the year 1980. The suit was ultimately decreed by the ADJ on 25.08.2003. The petitioner filed a first appeal against the said judgment which was admitted by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in the year 2003. The appeal came up for hearing on 10.02.2014 when fresh notices were issued to the parties. On 07.08.2014 the petitioner was unrepresented by the counsel. Thus the matter was adjourned. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 03.09.2014. Despite this mishap, no application for restoration was filed till 05.01.2016 seeking condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. That application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.02.2019.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then points out in the next para observing that, “A perusal of the impugned order shows that once again a reference has been made, as in similar cases of delay by the State to the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353. A claim was also made that the petitioner should not suffer for the fault of the counsel. The High Court opined that such substantial delay could not be condoned by mere shifting the blame on the counsel as the parties are required to keep track of the matter and there is negligence despite numerous opportunities.”
It goes without saying that the Apex Court is perfectly justified in holding so that parties have to keep tracking the progress of the case and they cannot escape from their responsibility by merely blaming everything on the counsel alone! What is more is that inspite of numerous opportunities there is still negligence by the parties in ensuring that their case progresses ahead which certainly cannot be condoned as the Apex Court has rightly held! All the parties must always bear this into account from now onwards!
Quite remarkably, the Apex Court Bench then observes quite lucidly that, “We have dealt with the issue of Government authorities in approaching Courts belatedly as if the Statute of Limitation does not exist for them. While referring to some reasons given for insufficiencies, we observed that the parties cannot keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government, (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. (supra). This situation no more prevail and this position had been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563.”
Of course, the Bench then observes that, “These aspects have been analyzed by us recently in SLP © No..D. 9217/2020- State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bheru Lal decided on 15.10.2020.”
More damningly, the Bench then observes in the new para that, “In the aforesaid judgment we have defined “certificate cases” the objective of which is only to put a quietus to the issue by recording that nothing could be done because the highest Court had dismissed the appeal. We have repeatedly deprecated such practice and process. The irony is that despite observations, no action was ever taken against officers who sit on the file and do nothing.”
Bluntly put: How can all this be condoned or lightly dismissed? This is really most condemnable that officers sit on file and do nothing and what is worst is that still no action ever taken against such officers. This just does not behove them and if they are not punished then they would only feel encouraged to commit repeatedly such unpardonable acts!
Most damningly, the Bench then feels compelled to castigate stating upfront in the new para that, “The matter is further aggravated in the present case and even the present petition is filed with a delay of 462 days and once again the excuse is of change of counsel.”
As if this was not enough, the Bench then very rightly laments in the next para that, “We have repeatedly deprecated such attempts of the State Governments to approach this Court only to complete a mere formality. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is valuable land involved. In our view, if it was so, then the concerned officers responsible for the manner in defending this petition must be made to pay for it.” Very rightly said! Why should the concerned culpable officers not be made to pay from their pockets for being negligent in performance of their obligatory duty!
Most significantly and most remarkably, the Bench then pulls back no punches to state it boldly and bluntly that, “We are thus constrained to dismiss the petition as barred by time and impose cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner for wastage of judicial time. We put it to the learned counsel that the cost would have been much greater but for the fact that a young counsel is appearing before us and we have given considerable concession in the costs on that factor alone.”
Finally, the Bench then holds that, “The costs be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay and costs be deposited within a month with the Supreme court Employees Welfare Fund. The certificate of recovery be also filed within the same period of time. The special leave petition is dismissed in aforesaid terms. Pending application stands disposed of.”
To conclude, the long and short of this latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment is that the three Judge Bench of Apex Court headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and also comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy have left no room for doubt that if Government operates like limitation law does not apply to it then they are sadly mistaken and they would have to pay through their nose for their unpardonable and indefinite delays by imposing costs on them as we see in this leading case also! In this notable case a fine of just Rs 15000 was imposed as the counsel was young which clearly implies that if the counsel was aged then the costs imposed would have been much higher! All this obligates on the Government and also its officers and counsel to ensure that there is no delay in ensuring that the case progresses speedily with time and if they fail to ensure this then it is they themselves who will have to face the consequences as we see in this case also! Very rightly so!
Sanjeev Sirohi