Union of India Vs. Vidarbhavenaer Industries [1993] INSC 317 (13 August 1993)
Verma,
Jagdish Saran (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 696
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
There
is an inordinate delay in filing these special leave petitions. The only
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners raised on the
averments in the application for condonation of delay is that the relevant file
was misplaced for quite some time in the office of the Central Agency and these
special leave petitions were filed after some delay even though that file could
not be traced.
There
is nothing in the application for condonation of delay to indicate the action
taken to find out how the file got lost or to fix the responsibility of someone
who should be accountable for the same. Learned counsel, even today, is unable
to indicate the same. We also enquired whether any action has been taken so far
to identify the person responsible for the lapse and to fix responsibility for
the same. Apparently, no such action has been taken as yet.
This
being so, a mere statement that the relevant file was lost in some office
cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay. It
may have been a different matter had the logical action been taken by the
petitioners to identify the persons responsible for the lapse and the necessary
action taken against him while ensuring further a non-repetition of similar +
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-10-1991 and 5-3- 1992 of the High Court of
Bombay in W.P. No. 301 of 1982 and Misc. C.A. No. 43 of 1992 697 lapses which,
we are sorry to say, are not uncommon in special leave petitions filed by the
Union of India. We are constrained to make these observations in view of the
fact that the SLPs filed on behalf of the Union of India are quite often barred
by time and the application for condonation of delay is made in a casual and
routine manner without indicating facts which would constitute sufficient cause
to permit condonation of delay in accordance with law.
I.A.
Nos. 1 and 2 for condonation of delay are rejected.
Consequently,
the special leave petitions are dismissed as time barred.
Back
