DSPA/33/2004 of UNION OF INDIA and ORS. Vs NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO.NIL OF 2004

DEFECTIVE SPECIAL APPEAL NO.33 OF 2004

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Civil Secretariat, New DelhiDefence, Civil Secretariat, New Delhi

2. Senior Record Officer, Raksha Suraksha CoreAbhileksh, Defence Security Core, Mill Road,Cannaore (Kerala)Abhileksh, Defence Security Core, Mill Road,Cannaore (Kerala)

3. Deputy Director General, General Staff Branch,Army Headquarter, West Block-III, R.K. Puram,New DelhiArmy Headquarter, West Block-III, R.K. Puram,New Delhi

4. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi

…………Appellants

Versus

Narendra Kumar SharmaS/o Late Sri Chandramani Sharma,R/o Village Majuli (Kalyanpur) Post Office Paharpani,Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital

……..Respondents

Learned standing counsel for the Union of IndiaSri A.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.

Dated: March 06, 2006

Coram:Hon. P.C. Verma, J.Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

1.This is an application for condonation ofdelay duly supported by an affidavit. The grounds

taken in the application for condonation of delay infiling the appeal are that after passing the impugnedorder dated 14.01.2004, the certified copy of the saidorder was sent to the appellant/respondent No.2 i.3.Senior Record Officer, Raksha Suraksha CoreAbhilekh, Defence Security Core, Mill Road, Cannaore(Kerala). The appellant No.2 studied the judgment andorder in question and thereafter he sent the matter tothe higher authorities for guidance to take next step.That the perusal of the judgment and order by thehigher authorities also took substantial time as finalstep in this regard had to be taken by them.Thereafter, the appellants reached to the conclusionthat the judgment and order dated 14.01.2004required to be challenged by means of Special Appealon the ground stated in the counter affidavit filed bythe appellants in the writ petition. That after reachinga final conclusion to challenge the order dated14.01.2004, the appellants wrote to the Ad hoc LegalCell, Army Holiday Home (Nainital) to approach theCentral Government Standing Counsel to challenge theorder dated 14.01.2004 by means of Special Appeal.That this entire process took considerable time and theappeal could not be filed within the stipulated period.That the delay in filing the Special Appeal is notintentional or deliberate, but occasioned on account fofacts stated in the preceding paragraphs of theapplication and hence the delay requires to becondoned.

2.The Respondents have filed their objectionto the application for condonation of delay. The mainobjection of the Respondent is that there is no

explanation of delay in not filing the appeal with thetime prescribed under the High Court Rules. The timeprescribed for filing the special appeal is 30 days fromthe date of judgment under challenge, but in thepresent case the appeal has been filed with delay ofabout 6 months and there is also not single wordthat how many days delay is there. It has also beenstated that no mention of the date is there on whichthe certified copy was received by Appellant No.2 andwhen it was sent to higher authorities. Therefore, it isprayed that the delay cannot be said to be reasonableand the application is liable to be rejected.

3.We have perused the affidavit in support ofthe application for condonation of delay. The learnedcounsel for the appellant has not given any specificreasons for condoning the delay. We do not find theexplanation given in the application for condonation ofdelay to be satisfactory. The appeal suffers from delayof more than six months. It is needless to say thateach day delay in an appeal has to be explained, whichhas not been done in the present case.

4.Therefore, we are not inclined to condone thedelay. The application for condonation of delay isrejected.

5.Consequently, the special appeal is alsodismissed accordingly.

(B.C. Kandpal, J.)

(P.C. Verma,J.)