CRL.L.P./4/2013 of DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs RAMESH KUMAR BUDHIRAJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.L.P. No. 4 of 2013

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate withMr. R.C. Gauniyal, A.E., DDA.

versus

RAMESH KUMAR BUDHIRAJA..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Advocate.

CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

O R R11.02.2014

Crl.L.P. No. 4 of 2013 & Crl.M.A. No. 46 of 2013 (for delay)

1. There is an inordinate delay of 237 days in filing leave to appealagainst the order dated 25[th]August 2012 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-2 (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CANo. 64 of 2012 and order dated 5[th]October 2011 passed by the learnedMetropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) in Complaint Case No. 216 of 2001acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Section 14 read withSection 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957.

2. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitionerhas produced before the Court written synopsis explaining that thePetitioner had wrongly filed the appeal before the Sessions Court on3[rd]August 2012 though it ought to have been filed before this Court

CRL. L.P. No. 4 of 2013

and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) by an orderdated 25[th]August 2012 dismissed the appeal on the ground ofmaintainability. He refers to paras 2, 3 and 4 of the delay applicationby way of explanation for the further delay in the filing of the presentleave petition on 27[th]November 2012. He referred to the followingdecisions of the Supreme Court and this Court:

(i) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst Katiji (1987) 2 SCC107;

(ii) State of J& K v. Mohd. Masqbool Sofi (2009) 15 SCC 177;

(iii) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008 Crl.L.J. 4355;

(iv) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123;

(v) Union of India v. Giani (2011) 11 SCC 480;

(vi) State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132;

(vii) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752;

(viii) State v. Vijender Singh 133 (2006) DLT 179 (DB).

3. The legal position as regards the condonation of delay in mattersfiled by the State and its instrumentalities has been explained by theSupreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited

(2012) 3 SCC 563. Para 29 of the said judgment reads as under:

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all thegovernment bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities thatunless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation forthe delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need toaccept the usual explanation that the file was kept pendinggovernment bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities thatunless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation forthe delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need toaccept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending

CRL. L.P. No. 4 of 2013

Page 2 of 4

for several months/years due to considerable degree ofprocedural red tape in the process. The governmentdepartments are under special obligation to ensure thatthey perform their duties with diligence and commitment.Condonation of delay is an exception and should not beusedasananticipatedbenefitforthegovernmentdepartments. The law shelters everyone under the samelight and should not be swirled for the benefit of few.”

4. In State of Rajasthan v. Bal Kishan Mathur 2014 (1) SCC 592, theSupreme Court reiterated that the condonation of delay cannot be amatter of course and that the State cannot claim any preferential orspecial treatment. Only where there has been no gross negligence or adeliberate inaction or lack of bonafides that liberal view has to beadopted to advance substantial justice. The Court referred to thedecision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited., whereit was held that “the claim on account of impersonal machinery andinherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot beaccepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available.The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including theGovernment.”

5. Most recently in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav[decision dated 10[th]January 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.882 of 2014] while declining to condone the delay of 481 days in filinga special leave petition, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlierdecision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited.

CRL. L.P. No. 4 of 2013

6. Tested on the parameters explained by the Supreme Court in theabove decisions, the Court finds the explanation offered by thePetitioner for the delay in filing the leave petition to be unsatisfactoryand inadequate. It is, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay of237 days in filing the criminal leave petition.

7.Theapplicationforcondonationofdelayisdismissed.Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

FEBRUARY 11, 2014Rk

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

CRL. L.P. No. 4 of 2013