State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Deo Kumar Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India, in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Deo Kumar Singh & Ors., dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Bihar after an extraordinary delay of 728 days, strongly criticising the casual and negligent manner in which government authorities pursued litigation. The dispute arose after the State challenged an order of a learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court with a delay of 367 days. The Division Bench rejected the application for condonation of delay because the State had failed to establish sufficient cause. The State thereafter approached the Supreme Court with a further delay of 728 days. In seeking condonation, the Government merely stated that time had been consumed in obtaining sanctions from the respective departments and receiving the necessary affidavit and vakalatnama. The Supreme Court found that this explanation contained no specific particulars accounting for the extraordinary delay and reflected an assumption that the State Government enjoyed an inherent entitlement to condonation.
The Supreme Court observed that government authorities cannot approach courts whenever they please because of the gross incompetence of their officers, particularly when no action is taken against those responsible. It emphasised that the law of limitation applies equally to the Government and that bureaucratic lethargy cannot be accepted as a routine justification for delayed proceedings. Referring to Office of the Chief Postmaster General Vs Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Court reiterated that condonation of delay is no longer permissible merely on the pretext of slow governmental functioning. It strongly deprecated the manner in which the State had approached both the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, observing that the proceedings appeared possibly intended only to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court and resulted in a complete waste of judicial time.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay and imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioners. Significantly, it directed that the amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay and deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre within four weeks. A certificate confirming recovery was required to be filed before the Court. The Supreme Court also directed the Chief Secretary of Bihar to examine the matter and ensure better management of government litigation. The case was directed to be listed before the Registrar upon reopening for verification of the recovery certificate.
The supplied material also contains the related High Court Division Bench’s reasoning for rejecting the earlier application for condonation of the 367-day delay. The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had passed the relevant order on 22 October 2013 and that the original condonation application, I.A. No. 3757 of 2015, did not disclose reasons explaining the delay. The supplementary affidavit subsequently attributed the delay of almost one year to obtaining legal opinion and collecting the necessary papers. The Division Bench held that a period of approximately one year for these administrative exercises was excessive for State authorities acting diligently to protect their rights. Refusing indulgence for bureaucratic delay, it rejected both the limitation application and the appeal. Thus, the High Court rejected the initial delay of 367 days, while the Supreme Court independently rejected the subsequent 728-day delay and imposed personal financial accountability on the officers responsible.
Related Reading: In the connected proceedings, the Patna High Court rejected the Bihar Government’s explanation for a 367-day delay in filing its appeal. Read: Patna High Court Rejects Bihar Government’s 367-Day Delayed Appeal.
Cases Discussed
- Office of the Chief Postmaster General Vs Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by the Supreme Court to hold that bureaucratic delays and governmental lethargy cannot automatically justify condonation of delay in filing judicial proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
The petitioner-State of Bihar filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench after a delay of 367 days. The Division Bench dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. It is thereafter with a delay of 728 days that the special leave petition has been filed. The reason given for seeking condonation of this extraordinary 728 days delay is as under:
“2. that the petitioner State is filing the present special leave petition after obtaining all the sanctions from the respective departments and took time to receive the affidavit and vakalatnama from the concerned department, hence there is delay in filing the present matter.”
We are of the view that a clear signal has to sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct.
That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012(3) SCC 563].
We strongly deprecate the casual manner in which the Division Bench was approached and also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the petitioners must pay for the same.
We, thus, dismiss the special leave petition on delay and impost cost on the petitioners of Rs. 20,000/-to be recovered from the officers responsible for this delay and be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, within four weeks. Certificate of recovery be filed in this court.
We also direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar to look into this matter to ensure better management of the legal cases.
Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
List before the Registrar, on reopening, to verify the certificate of recovery.
