,(:(: ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritADpeal No.151/2009 D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMARSUNHA & HON'BLE^SHRI JUSTICER.L^JHANW R APPEU.ANT RESPONDENTS 1 2 3 M/s Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd., Near raihway crossing Mowa, Raipur-492007 Through Manager, Eariier -(Shri Rajendra Tiwari S/o Shri B.N. Tiwari, Aged about 32 years, Raipur, At presentShri Durgesh Sosni, S/o Ram KumarSoni Aged about 33 yeiars, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Union of India, Through Seeretary, Ministry of Railways, NewDelhf General Manager, S.E.C. Ralhway, Headquaters Qffice, Bilaspur(C.G.) The Chief Commercial Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) Appearance: Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Counsel for theappellant. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsel for the respondents. ORDER (09.09.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard. The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeat against the order dated 7th of February 2006 passed in W.P. No.641/2006 by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court. Along with the memo ofappeal, -2.- W.A.Ne.151/2009 theappellant has also filedan application for condonation ofdelay, which has been marked as I.A.No.01. According tothe reportofthe Registry, theappeal isbarred by 1179 days of limitation. The contention of learned Gounsel for ttie appellant is that the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was not in force on 07.02.2006 when the orderwas passed bythe writ Court. After coming into force of the aforesaid Act on 06.01.2007, the concerned Counsel has informedtheManageroftheappellant Firm.butthe Managerdid not take any interest in the matter and he did not communicate the same to the Directorsofthe Tirm. He submits that thiswas disclosed when the new Manager made query about the status of the case. Thereafter, thedocuments relating to the case, which were taken by the old Manager, could not be traced and a long time elaf^ed to trace the documents and fite theappeal. Hissubmission isthat the delay in filing the appeal has beencaused due to frequent change In appointment of the persons deallng with the tegal matters of the Firm and also on account of the fact that the Directors were not communicated by their employees at proper time, after dismissal of the writ petition. He also submitsthat insum and substance, the delay was caused on account of negligence of the employees of the appellant Firm, therefore, the same may be condoned. Qn the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed these arguments. Hesubmits that the grounds taken are not bonafide. After passing of the order in the writ petition on 07.02.2)06, the appellant Firm ought to have filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which they did not do and even after coming into force of the Act, the appeal was not filed up to 14.06.2009 and ultimately, it was filedon 15.06.2009, which is an .rf'":'^'-'1'--. ^^/"~"" --S- W.A. No.151/2009 unexplajned inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the delay should not be condoned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ appeal. In the matter of N. Balakrishnan -Vs.- M. Krishnamurthv f1998) 7 SCC 123. the Apex Court held that -the law of timitation is founded on public polfey. It is enshrined in the maxim "interest relpubllcae up sit Rnis IISunf (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." The Apex Court also held that "the length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is fhe only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory." In the present case, we find that the delay has not been properly explained by the appellant. The appellant has pleaded that the negligence was on the part of their employees/representatives, which cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The employer has to suffer for the negligence and inaetion on the part of their employees. The day-to-day delay, as required to be explained, has not been explained by the appellant and the appeal has been filed, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. - Shri Ahluwalia lastly argued that this Court has condoned the delay in another appeal filed by the appellant i.e. W.A. No.270/2008. We may firstly note that the delay in the said appeal was of 653 days and secondly that the delay in filing the appeal was !'s;''%».. {• S ^.^" 4- - W.A. No.151/2009 condoned on a different ground, the relevant part of the order dated 30.03.2009 is quoted as follows : "On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the circumstences leading to withdrawal of the review petition fited by the appellant and thereafter filing of the present writ appeal, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in Tiling the appeal." i? No such ground has been taken by the appetlant in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.01, therefore, is dismissed. Consequently, W.A. No.151/2009 is also dismissed, as barred by limitation. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge