Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J & K & Ors vs Satpal Saini on 21 December, 2024
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 02
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 76/2024 in
SWP No. 817/2012
CM No. 2061/2024
CM No. 2063/2024
UT of J & K & Ors. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. S S Nanda, Sr. AAG
v/s
Satpal Saini .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
21.12.2024
CM No. 2061/2024
1. The appeal sought to be preferred by the appellants against the
order and judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court (hereinafter, to be referred to as “the Writ
Court”) in SWP No. 817/2012 is delayed by 373 days. Hence, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 44
of the J & K High Court Rules for seeking condonation is filed.
2. It is averred by the appellants that the judgment sought to be
impugned in the appeal was passed on 30.01.2023 and immediately
on receipt of the judgment passed by the Writ Court, the appellant
no. 3 took up the matter vide its communication dated 20.03.2023
with the Home Department for clarifying the fact with regard to the
filing of the acquittal appeal or otherwise. It is submitted that no
response was given by the Home Department.
2 LPA No. 76/2024 in
SWP No. 817/2012
CM No. 2061/2024
CM No. 2063/2024
3. In the face of aforesaid position, the appellant no. 3 vide its
communication dated 12.09.2023 requested the Director
Prosecution, UT of J & K for furnishing the information as to
whether against the judgment of acquittal passed by Special Judge,
Anti Corruption Bureau, any acquittal appeal had been preferred.
The Director Prosecution requested the appellant no. 3 via Email
dated 21.10.2023 to approach ACB and accordingly vide
communication dated 06.10.2023 the Director, ACB informed the
appellants that an acquittal appeal against the judgment dated
09.12.2021 had been preferred and was pending adjudication in the
High Court. The matter was taken up by the appellant no. 3 vide its
communication dated 06.02.2024 to the Director, ACB to issue
NOC/Vigilance Clearance in favour of the petitioner. The ACB,
Jammu reverted back to the appellant no. 3 vide its communication
dated 15.02.2024 and requested to route the matter via EVSC Portal
through General Administration Department.
4. The appellants further submits that the matter was thereafter taken
up with the Government where the decision was taken that the
judgment passed by the Writ Court was required to be challenged
by filing an appeal and this is how the appeal was filed, though,
belatedly.
5. The instant application is opposed by learned counsel for the
respondent who submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal
is apparently due to remissness and negligence at the part of the
appellants to fail to take the decision with regard to the filing of the
appeal in time.
3 LPA No. 76/2024 in
SWP No. 817/2012
CM No. 2061/2024
CM No. 2063/2024
6. Mr. Jagpaul further submits that mere correspondence inter se the
department does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the
huge delay of 373 days. He submits that the decision to file appeal
was taken when reverse orders came to be passed in the contempt
petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, we are of the considered opinion
that in the given facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the
appeal deserves to be condoned. We are aware that delay of 373
days is a huge delay but it is well known in the Government that the
officers responsible for taking decision at different stages do not
take personal interest and process the files in the routine manner.
8. In the instant case, it is not the case of anybody that the appellants
had accepted the judgment and decided to file appeal only to avoid
the orders in the contempt. As a matter of fact, the appellants had
taken up the matter with the ACB, Home Department and GAD.
They wanted to know as to whether any appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents had
already been preferred or not. The response from the ACB, Home
Department and GAD was not as prompt as was expected. Each
department took its time to convey necessary instructions to the
appellants. For all those reasons, we are convinced that the cause
shown by the appellants for filing the appeal beyond the limitation
period is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in terms of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4 LPA No. 76/2024 in
SWP No. 817/2012
CM No. 2061/2024
CM No. 2063/2024
9. The application is allowed and accordingly, the delay of 373
days in filing the instant appeal is condoned, subject to payment
of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
10. Application disposed of.
LPA No. 76/2024
1. Notice issued, which is waived by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the appeal can be
considered and disposed of at the threshold itself.
3. List for final consideration on 24.12.2024, with liberty to make
mention.
CM No. 2063/2024
1. The instant application has been preferred by the appellants seeking
permission of this Court to place on record the copies of
communication dated 20.03.2023, 12.09.2023, 21.10.2023,
25.09.2023 and 06.10.2023.
2. For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the
submissions made at Bar, the same is allowed and the
abovementioned communications are permitted to be taken on
record.
3. Application disposed of.
(Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
21.12.2024
Manan
Manan Mahajan
2024.12.21 15:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document