Held: Substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay – However, condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial – There is no formula that caters to all situations – Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable – Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – High Court did not exercise discretion in an arbitrary manner – Order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not – High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the department’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference – An exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justiceoriented approach by Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – Hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, cannot be ignored – Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests – Thus, the impugned order reasonably condoned the delay caused in presenting the appeal before the High Court. [Para 29, 30, 32, 37, 38]
Delay/laches – Condonation of – An ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ offered for the delay – Difference between: Held: Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – Care must be taken to distinguish explanation from excuse – An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something – It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault – An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC
685 : [2010] 8 SCR 597; University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 745 : [2019] 16 SCR 1259; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 752 : [2005]
3 SCR 108; Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363 : [2011] 3 SCR 217; Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 : [2012] 1 SCR 1045; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649 : [2013] 9 SCR 782; State of Manipur & Ors. v. Koting Lamkang (2019) 10 SCC 408 : [2019] 13 SCR 565; G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142 : [1988] 3 SCR 198; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC
132 : [1996] 1 SCR 1060; Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 848; Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390 : [2003] 2 SCR 1068; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980)
2 SCC 593 : [1980] 2 SCR 146; State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC
654 : [2020] 8 SCR 912 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.