Case: Office Of The Chief Post Master  Vs. Living Media India Ltd

(a) Living Media India Ltd.-Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which publishes the magazines "Readers Digest" and "India Today". These magazines are registered newspapers vide Registration Nos. DL 11077/03-05 and DL 11021/01-05 respectively issued by the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi (in short `Postal Department)-appellant herein under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (in short `the Act) read with the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 (in short `the Rules) and the Post Office Guide and are entitled for transmission by post under concessional rate of postage.(b) On 14.10.2005, the Manager (Circulation), Living Media India Ltd., submitted an application to the Postal Department seeking permission to post December, 2005 issue of Readers Digest magazine containing the advertisement of Toyota Motor Corporation in the form of book-let with Calendar for the year 2006 at concessional rates in New Delhi. By letter dated 08.11.2005, the Postal Department denied the grant of permission for mailing the said issue at concessional rates on the ground that the book-let containing advertisement with calendar is neither a supplement nor a part and parcel of the publication. On 17.11.2005, the Director (Publishing), Living Media India once again submitted an application seeking the same permission which was also denied by the Postal Department by letter dated 21.11.2005.(c) In the same way, the Postal Department also refused to grant concessional rate of postage to post the issue dated December 26, 2005 of "India Today magazine containing a book-let of Amway India Enterprises titled "Amway" vide their letters dated 18.02.2006 and 17.03.2006 stating that the said magazine was also not entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate available to registered newspapers.(d) Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the decision of the Postal Department filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 22679-80 of 2005 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4985 of 2006 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 28.03.2007 allowed both the petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 herein.(e) Being aggrieved, the Postal Department filed LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide common final judgment and order dated 11.09.2009, while upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissed both the appeals. Challenging the said order, the Postal Department has preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no publicWe have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.14) In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.