CM No. 30403-CII of 2009 and FAO No. 5860 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 30403-CII of 2009 and FAO No. 5860 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.2.2010 Haryana Roadways through its General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad .. Appellant. v. Sukhwati @ Madhu and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant-appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal against the award dated 16.11.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation of Rs. 2,97,000/- to respondents No. 1 to 4 on account of the death of Samay Singh in a motor vehicular accident involving a Haryana Roadways bus. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 662 days in filing the appeal has been filed. The appeal was filed in this court on 9.12.2009. In the application for condonation of delay, it was mentioned that initially, District Attorney, Faridabad opined that the case was not fit for filing appeal. The opinion was approved by the Legal Remembrancer vide memo dated 12.12.2007. Thereafter, letter dated 27.3.2009 was sent to the Legal Remembrancer opining that the award of the Tribunal was based on conjectures and surmises, against which the appeal be filed in the High Court and requisite instructions be issued to Advocate General, Haryana. Legal Remembrancer, Haryana inadvertently issued instructions to the District Attorney on 20.4.2009 to defend the execution petition. However, subsequently vide memo dated 12.5.2009, the Legal Remembrancer issued instructions to Advocate General, Haryana for filing appeal. Admittedly, the instructions of the Legal Remembrancer were received in the office of the applicant-appellant on 29.6.2009 and the appeal was preferred in this court on 9.12.2009, whereas the limitation for filing the appeal expired on 18.2.2008. CM No. 30403-CII of 2009 and FAO No. 5860 of 2009 (O&M) [2] Finding the cause shown for seeking condonation of delay of 662 days to be prima facie not sufficient, on 12.1.2010, this Court passed the following order: “Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay of 662 days in filing the appeal which is sought to be explained by stating that initially the District Attorney opined that the case was not fit for filing the appeal which was approved by the LR. However, later on again the case was sent to LR seeking permission to file appeal with the opinion that the Tribunal had based its award on conjectures and surmises. Even though second time LR approved the filing of appeal by issuing instructions to AG, Haryana on April 20, 2009, copy of which was received by AG office on June 29, 2009 but still the appeal was filed in December, 2009. Learned Additional AG, Haryana seeks time to have instructions from the appellant, as to who are the persons responsible for this delay. Adjourned to 1.02.2010.” Today, fresh application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay along with the affidavit of Pardeep Kumar, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad has been filed reiterating what was already stated in the application earlier filed. There is no explanation forthcoming in the fresh application and the affidavit as to on what basis the earlier opinion was formed that the case was not fit for filing appeal and on what basis subsequently, it was opined that the award was based on conjectures and surmises. However, in spite of the fact that the appeal was already belated, when the second opinion was formed about the award being based on conjectures and surmises in March, 2009, but still thereafter the matter was not pursued diligently and whosoever dealt with the file kept on sleeping thereon and the appeal was filed in this court on 9.12.2009, for which no explanation is forthcoming. Even today, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to explain the reasons satisfactorily. Though the State is granted some latitude in condoning the delay considering impersonal attitude of the officers working and dealing with the files at different levels, the casual manner in which the file in the present case had been dealt with cannot be appreciated at all. As the cause shown by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay is not found to be reasonable, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. On 12.1.2010, the Additional Advocate General, Haryana had CM No. 30403-CII of 2009 and FAO No. 5860 of 2009 (O&M) [3] sought time to have instructions from the appellant as to who were the persons responsible for the delay, still even in the affidavit filed today, no such detail is forthcoming, which means there is much to hide than to disclose. The officers of the State are paid from the State exchequer. They are supposed to work and not merely sign on dotted lines without application of mind. The manner in which the file was dealt with at the initial stage and subsequently certainly shows serious lapse on the part of the officers. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana is directed to produce the file pertaining to the case in which the opinion was initially formed and approved and also the file where the subsequent proposal was dealt with from the stage of initiation till the filing of appeal. Adjourned to 26.2.2010 for the abovesaid purpose. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.2.2010 mk