Suresh H.L vs The Management Sarvodaya Vidhyavardhaka and another Writ Petition 46435/2017 (S-Dis) decided on 4 November.
Judgement link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347715/1/WP46435-17-04-11-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 8. Condonation of delay is discretion of the Court. Sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case. Sufficient cause means adequate cause. The party who seeks conduction of delay shall demonstrate that there was no negligence, or there was no inactiveness on his part. The reasons for condonation of delay must be bonafide and reasonable. Sufficient case (sufficient cause) is to be given liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done. An order of dismissal from service will have far reaching civil consequences on the petitioner, as the order of dismissal virtually amounts to deprivation of right to livelihood. In that circumstances, the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Katiji and others cited supra while considering Section 5 of the Limitation Act has held that “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that while condoning the delay liberal approach is to be adopted keeping in mind the following principles:-
(1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Asagainst which when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
(3) ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
(4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
(6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
Judgments in G. RAME GOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE, reported in (1988) 2SCC 142 and N.BALAKRISHNANVs.M.KRISHNAMURTHY reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 relied on.
10. The cause stated by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case would constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal failed to exercise its discretion judiciously while considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Writ Petition allowed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj and Sreekriti Taggarse, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 