Decided On:04.03.2025 vs Soman Devi (Since Deceased) on 4 March, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On:04.03.2025 vs Soman Devi (Since Deceased) on 4 March, 2025

2025:HHC:4613-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT
SHIMLA
CWP No.767 of 2024
Decided on:04.03.2025
__________________________________________________________
Union of India and Others …Petitioners
Versus
Soman Devi (since deceased) …Respondents
through her legal heirs-Deepak
Sharma & ors.

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?.

For the petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India [Senior
Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev
Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma
and Mr. Gopal Singh Verma,
Advocates.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]
CMP(M) No.227 of 2025

Keeping in view the averments made in the

application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the

opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to

condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 407 days in

filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of

respondent No.1, is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

CMP(M) No.226 of 2025

2. The present application under Order 22 Rule 4

of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to bring on

record legal heirs of deceased-respondent [Soman Devi].

3. No reply is intended to be filed to the present

application.

4. Keeping in view the averments made in the

application duly supported by an affidavit, the

application is allowed and legal heirs of deceased-

respondent [Soman Devi] are ordered to be substituted

as respondents No.I to VII as mentioned in Para 1 of the

application.

5. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record.

The application stands disposed of.

CWP No.767 of 2024

6. Challenge has been laid to the order dated

17.05.2022, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal,

Chandigarh, Regional Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla, in

O.A. No.1298 of 2020, titled as Soman Devi versus Union

of India and Others. The writ petition has been filed on

15.01.2024, after the period of more than one and half

years. The perusal of the impugned order would go on

-3- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

to show that it is a consent order and matter was covered

by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.

7. The matter is covered by a judgment passed by

this Court in CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled as Union of

India & Others versus Pawna Devi and connected

matters, decided on 25.02.2025, whereby we dismissed

the petitions on the ground of delay and laches, wherein

it was observed as under:-

“10. As noticed, the Tribunal had passed various
orders way back in May, August & November,
2022 and for a period ranging to1 year to 1½
years, the Union of India opted not to
challenge the said orders.

11. In service matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has time and again held that the orders
passed by the authorities regarding seniority
etc. be challenged within a reasonable time
and reference can be made in the judgment of
P.S. Sadasivcaswamyv. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, whereby the right
has been curtailed of the litigants to
challenge the administrative orders or claim
the right to seniority by filing the writ
petitions.

12. The said principle can be kept in mind while
deciding the present cases also. The concept
of liberal approach has to be kept in mind,
but the concept of reasonableness and a total
unfettered free play cannot be permitted and
there is a distinction between inordinate
delay and delay of short duration. The
fundamental principle before the Court is to
weigh the balance of justice in respect of both
parties and inaction of a party cannot be
given the go-by in the name of a liberal
approach and the lack of bonafide’s which is
a relevant factor.

-4- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

13. In State of Nagaland versus Lipok AO and
others (2005) 3 SCR 108, certain amount of
latitude was held permissible to the
officers/officials of the Government by
applying the principles of ‘a little play at a
joints’ and resultantly the delay of 57 days
which had occurred in filing the application
for leave to appeal in view of the provisions
under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had been allowed. It was, however,
held that the State has impersonal machinery
which works through its officers or servants
to grant the said relief keeping in view the
nominal delay.

14. Similar principles have been laid down in
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and
another versus K. Thangappan and
another(2006) 4 SCC 322. It was held that
the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if there is such
negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right as it will cause
prejudice to the opposite party. Accordingly it
was held that the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction while relying upon the
judgment in State of M.P vs. Nandlal Jaiswal
(1986) 4 SCC 566. In Tridip Kumar Dingal
and others versus State of West Bengal
and others (2009) 1 SCC 768,it was held
that there is no upper or lower limit of
limitation. The principles were accordingly
laid down that invocation under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India should be invoked
at the earliest. Accordingly, it was held that
jurisdiction of the writ Court has to be
invoked at the earliest reasonably possible
opportunity. This principle was not to
encourage agitation of stale claims and
exhume matters which had already been
disposed of or settled. Thus, it was left open
to the Writ Court as being question of
discretion which will be decided on the basis
of facts before the Court depending and
varying from case to case. Thus, what is to be
kept in mind is that the writ Court has to be
vigilant not to expose the other side
unnecessarily to face litigation if the
explanation offered is not to be accepted or is
fanciful in nature which has already been

-5- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

noticed by us in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.

15. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs versus
Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and
another (2008) 17 SCC 448, the delay as
such of 1724 days in filing the appeals which
had been condoned by the Bombay High
Court was set aside by holding that the
Limitation Act does not provide for a different
period to the Government for filing appeals or
applications and statutes of limitation are
prescribed as ‘Statute’s of peace’. It was
accordingly held that where the Government
makes out a case and where public interest
was shown to have suffered owing to acts of
fraud or collusion on the part of its officers,
the benefits as such could be given, which is
not the case herein.

16. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries
Ltd versus Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation and another
(2010) 5 SCC 459, it was held that law of
limitation is founded on public policy and
resultantly the appeal was allowed and the
order condoning the delay as such of four
years in filing of the appeal was set aside by
holding that in the absence of any
plausible/tangible explanation for long delay
of more than four years in filing of appeal,
there was no valid reasons to condone the
delay.

17. In Chief Postmaster General and others
versus Living Media India Limited and
another (2012) 3 SCC 563, the principles as
such have been laid down that the
department could not take advantage of
impersonal machinery or the inherited
bureaucratic methodology and the law of
limitation binds everybody including the
Government. The relevant paras of the said
judgment reads as under:-

“27. 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

-6- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

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.

28. 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.

29. 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

-7- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

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.”

18. In Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal
Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5
SCC 157, it has been held that a litigant
acquire certain rights and if the Court finds
that there is negligence in prosecuting the
case then it would be a legitimate exercise of
discretion not to condone the delay.

19. In B. MadhuriGoud versus B. Damodar
Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, it was noticed
that there is a life span for such legal remedy
for the redressal of such injuries so suffered
and unending period lead to unending
certainty and consequential anarchy. The
Rules of limitation were held not meant to
destroy the rights of the parties.

20. In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649,
the principles of limitation were culled out as
under:

“i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic,
justice-oriented, non-pedantic
approach while dealing with an
application for condonation of delay,
for the courts are not supposed to
legalise injustice but are obliged to
remove injustice.

ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be
understood in their proper spirit,
philosophy and purpose regard being
had to the fact that these terms are
basically elastic and are to be applied
in proper perspective to the obtaining
fact- situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount
and pivotal the technical

-8- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

considerations should not be given
undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to
deliberate causation of delay but,
gross negligence on the part of the
counsel or litigant is to be taken note
of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a
party seeking condonation of delay is
a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence
to strict proof should not affect public
justice and cause public mischief
because the courts are required to be
vigilant so that in the ultimate
eventuate there is no real failure of
justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsule the conception of
reasonableness and it cannot be
allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between
inordinate delay and a delay of short
duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted
whereas to the latter it may not be
attracted. That apart, the first one
warrants strict approach whereas the
second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of
a party relating to its inaction or
negligence are relevant factors to be
taken into consideration. It is so as the
fundamental principle is that the
courts are required to weigh the scale
of balance of justice in respect of both
parties and the said principle cannot
be given a total go by in the name of
liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted
or the grounds urged in the application
are fanciful, the courts should be
vigilant not to expose the other side
unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

-9- 2025:HHC:4613-DB

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one
gets away with fraud,
misrepresentation or interpolation by
taking recourse to the technicalities of
law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be
carefully scrutinized and the approach
should be based on the paradigm of
judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on
individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity
representing a collective cause should
be given some acceptable latitude.”

21. In State of Madhaya Pradesh versus
Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, the apex
Court has commented upon the tendency of
the State as such to file ‘Certificate Cases’ in
order to cover up its lapse.

22. In State of Orissa and others versus
Sunanda Mahakuda (2021) 1 SCC 560,
similar observations came forth from the apex
Court while dismissing a Special Leave
Petition which was time barred and
proceedings had been filed after contempt
proceedings had been initiated on the
dismissal of the writ appeal and therefore, the
conduct of the State Government was
depreciated while imposing costs of
Rs.25000/-.

23. Similar was the position in State of Uttar
Pradesh and others versus Sabha Narain
and others (2022) 9 SCC 266, which is a
three Judge Bench verdict. The relevant
portion reads as under:-

“4. We have also categorized such kind of
cases as “certificate cases” filed with
the only object to obtain a quietus from
the Supreme Court on the ground that
nothing could be done because the
highest Court has dismissed the
appeal. The objective is to complete a
mere formality and save the skin of
the officers who may be in default in
following the due process or may have

– 10 – 2025:HHC:4613-DB

done it deliberately. We have
deprecated such practice and process
and we do so again. We refuse to
grant such certificates and if
the Government/public authorities
suffer losses, it is time when
concerned officers responsible for the
same, bear the consequences. The
irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is
that no action is ever taken against the
officers and if the Court pushes it,
some mild warning is all that
happens.”

24. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs
and others vs. Special Deputy Collector
(LA) 2024 SC OnLine SC 513, it was also
held that stale matters cannot be entertained
to defeat the substantial law of limitation and
Statute.

25. It is not the case of Union of India that there
is any fraud or misrepresentation in the
present set of cases, whereby mainly the legal
representatives of the Armed Forces are
seeking redressal of their rights. The State or
the public body can be given some acceptable
latitude keeping in view the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the principle of
limitation and though no precise formula,as
such,can be laid down, but we cannot brush
aside the fact that the parties in view of the
orders passed by the Tribunal could have
also resorted to getting the orders executed
by filing appropriate remedies and Tribunal
has also granted the benefit of penal interest,
if the payment is not made within the
prescribed period. Inspite of this fact the
Union of India chose to sit tight and chose
not to file the writ petitions within a
reasonable period which can be classified as
one year and beyond the same, no indulgence
can be granted.

26. Therefore, the period prior to 18.10.2023 as
such between the date of the decisions
ranging from May/August/November, 2022
cannot be condoned in any manner and
therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that the present writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches

– 11 – 2025:HHC:4613-DB

as on account of Union of India not having
resorted to its legal remedies expeditiously or
even having made reasonable effort to
challenge the said orders or even take a
decision as such to challenge the said orders
for a period of over one year. The latitude as
such on account of laxity on the department,
in such circumstances cannot be extended.

27. Without going into the merits of the cases, we
are of the considered opinion that there is a
delay of over a year from passing of the
orders and no effort was made to challenge
the order passed by the Tribunal within a
reasonable time, therefore, on account of the
opinion given on 18.09.2023, the Union of
India cannot raise the issue on merits.”

8. Resultantly, there is no other option, but to

dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of principle

of delay and laches and the same is accordingly dismissed

along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice

(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
March 04, 2025
[Shivender/Himani]