C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:21.10.2011 The State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Sanjeev Gehlot and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal challenging the award dated 30.07.2010 of the Reference Court, Faridabad, on the ground that the market value of the land in question has been determined at a higher rate. There is a delay of 351 days in filing this appeal. The averments made in the application for condonation for delay read thus:- “That after having obtained certified copy of said award dated 30.07.2010, the District Attorney Faridabad referred the matter to Legal Remembrancer & Secretary to Government of C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Haryana alongwith endorsement to this office vide memo No.2459 dated 3.9.2010 which was received in this office on 3.9.2010 vide which the District Attorney opined to file the appeal. That after examining the opinion of District Attorney and impugned award of the Court, the legal Remembrancer & Secretary to Government Haryana issued proposal for filing appeal in the Hon'ble High Court to the office of Advocate General Haryana, Chandigarh vide his memo No.61594 dated 18.10.2010, copy of which was received in this office on 26.10.2010. That the office of Advocate General of Haryana informed this office vide his letter No.39839 dated 26.10.10 for sending the necessary documents for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble High Court which was received in this office on 2.11.2010. That after taking necessary action on the above said letter of Advocate General of Haryana, the necessary documents were got prepared through private typing company as there is acute shortage of staff and load of work in the office. The said papers for filing appeal were got typed and the same were handed over the dealing assistant of office of Advocate General of Haryana. That the limitation for filing of appeal expired on 27.10.2010 That there has been a delay of 351 days in filing appeal which has been caused due to the reason given in paras No.2 to 5 and due to shortage of staff and rush of work. There was no intention of causing delay in filing the appeal by the appellant.” A perusal of the averments made in the application would C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) 3 show that the necessary sanction for filing the instant appeal was received by the appellant-department well within time. However, it has been averred that the delay has been caused due to the preparation of documents i.e. typing etc., which has been got done by out-sourcing as there is an acute shortage of staff and load of work. The aforesaid explanation is hardly sufficient to condone the delay. In the similar circumstances while dismissing several appeals filed by the State of Haryana in RFA No.4649 of 2011 titled as State of Haryana vs. Hukam Chand and Ors decided on 16.09.2011 observed which reads thus:- “The only reason to explain the delay caused in filing the appeal is that there is an acute shortage of staff and load of work in the office and thus, due to administrative exigencies which were beyond the control of the Department, delay has occurred. However, no effort has been made by the appellants to explain that what were those administrative exigencies which were beyond the control of the Department. Neither any detail of shortage of staff and load of work has been explained. It seems that the appellant-State is pursuing its remedy in a causal and negligent manner and there is no application of mind to the cases in hand. This Court on earlier occasions also has noticed that in most of these State appeals wherever the application for condonation of delay is filed, it is averred that the delay has occurred due to administrative exigencies. This Court in RFA No.4218 of 2011 and other connected appeals filed on behalf of the State of Haryana, decided on C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) 4 23.08.2011, wherein also prayer for condoning the delay was made on the ground of administrative exigencies, have found that the attitude of the officials of the State of Haryana in defending the State cases is very casual. In fact in the aforesaid cases, an explanation of the the Director Urban and Financial Commissioner-cum Secretary, Urban Estate, Haryana was also sought. However, no such explanation was filed on behalf of the said office in pursuance of the aforesaid order and finding that the Department had failed to explain the administrative exigencies causing the delay in filing the appeals, the appeals were dismissed as time barred. In RFA No.4452 of 2011 (State of Haryana and another v. Harpreet Singh and another) decided on 29.08.2011, there was a delay of 242 days in filing that appeal wherein also averment was made that the said delay has occurred due to administrative exigencies, however, this Court has not accepted the aforesaid ground of the State of Haryana for condoning the delay. Again in RFA No.4610 of 2011 (The State of Haryana and another v.Municipal Corporation Gurgaon and another) which was decided on 29.08.2011 by this Court, the State of Haryana while challenging the award of the Reference Court had taken the same ground to condone the delay which was not accepted.” Similarly affidavit for condoning the delay filed by this very Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad was not accepted by this Court in other Regular First Appeal wherein it has been held that administrative exigencies to condone the delay is no excuse. C.M.No.14740-CI of 2011 in RFA No.6409 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Prayer for condoning the delay is rejected. Consequently the appeal is also rejected which is time barred. No other civil miscellaneous applications survive. October 21, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE