Full Text
Date of Decision: 07.08. 2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Advocate.
Through: Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Anshul Yadav, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
JUDGMENT
1. The respondent is stated to be seventy-three years old. He had filed the first petition, WP (C) 6663/2010, which was disposed of on 19.09.2011. The respondent had filed the second petition, W.P.(C) 5855/2013, as according him the appellant had denied the complete benefit of the order dated 19.09.2011. This petition was disposed of by the order dated 22.01.2019, which the appellant seeks to impugn in the above captioned appeal.
2. The appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 279 days in filing the present appeal.
3. The appellant had filed a application (being CM No.53023/2019) seeking similar relief but the same was bereft of any particulars. The said application was listed on 10.12.2019 and this Court had passed the following order: “1. The present appeal has been filed by the DDA assailing the judgment dated 22.1.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent claiming entitlement to allotment of a flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, on pre-existing priority number.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 279 days. Having perused the averments made in the application, we are of the view that the same are extremely flimsy and the appellant/DDA does not deserve any indulgence.
3. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/DDA states that DDA may be permitted to file a better affidavit in support of the condonation of delay application.
4. As and when such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
5. List on 28.1.2020.”
4. On the next date of hearing, that is, on 28.01.2020, the learned counsel appearing for appellant withdrew the earlier application (CM No.53023/2019) as the appellant had filed the present application. None was present on behalf of the respondent on the said date and the matter was accordingly, deferred to 31.03.2020. However, thereafter, the functioning of the Court was disrupted for a considerable period of time due to the outbreak of Covid-19.
5. The present appeal was, thereafter, listed on 24.02.2022. Since none was present on behalf of the respondent, the hearing of the petition was deferred. It was listed a few times thereafter but the hearing was adjourned either on the request made by the counsel or on account of paucity of time.
6. The application filed by the appellant sets out the reasons that occasioned the delay in filing the present appeal. The applicant/appellant states that immediately after receiving the impugned order dated 22.01.2019, steps were taken to process the file to put up before the competent authority. The file was put up before the competent authority through the Senior Law Officer (Housing) on 07.02.2019. The appellant then decided to place the same before its Appeal Committee. This court is informed that the appellant has constituted the Appeal Committee to decide whether an appeal is required to be filed.
7. A meeting of the Appeal Committee was held on 13.02.2019 and the Appeal Committee decided to accept the impugned order and not file any appeal against the said decision. The minutes of the said meeting held on 13.02.2019 were signed on 08.03.2019.
8. It is explained that thereafter, the file was sent to the Accounts Branch but certain queries were raised by the Accounts Branch and the file moved from desk to desk. However, when the file was put up before the Commissioner (Housing) on 14.06.2019, he decided that an appeal must be preferred notwithstanding the earlier decision of the Appeal Committee to accept the impugned order.
9. Thereafter, the matter proceeded at a leisurely pace. A separate meeting was convened on 20.06.2019 for discussing the issues, which was postponed to 28.06.2019 due to non-availability of members. It was once again re-scheduled for 05.07.2019 for administrative reasons. It was not held on 05.07.2019 either but was finally held on 12.07.2019, almost a month after the Commissioner (Housing) had decided to file an appeal contrary to the earlier decision.
10. It is stated that discussions took place on 12.07.2019 and it took eleven days to finalise the minutes of the said meeting. The same were finalised on 23.07.2019.
11. Approximately two weeks later, on 05.08.2019, the matter was submitted to Chief Legal Advisor for entrustment of the matter to the counsel. This also took another two weeks and the file was received by the lawyer on the panel of the appellant on 19.08.2019. But the copy of the writ petition was not available on file and therefore, it was returned to the department. It was again sent to the learned counsel along with a copy of the writ petition on 28.08.2019. Thus, it took more than two months for the file to completely reach to the counsel after the decision was taken to file the appeal.
12. Thereafter, the process started for drafting of the petition. The application indicates that after the draft appeal was submitted by the panel lawyer on 06.09.2019, it was then verified. Now started the process of discussions whether a senior advocate should be engaged. These deliberations carried on for approximately more than a month. Finally on 10.10.2019, the competent authority decided that a senior RAWAL counsel should be engaged.
13. Thereafter, on 14.10.2019, the Chief Legal Advisor decided to entrust the case to senior counsel along with the panel lawyer. The file was received by the panel lawyer four days later, that is, on 18.10.2019 and then it was sent to the senior counsel for vetting on 19.10.2019. The vetting of the appeal by a senior counsel also took about a month and was received back by the panel lawyer on 15.11.2019 and then forwarded to the appellant on 16.11.2019.
14. The file was received by the Housing Branch for factual verification and signatures on 20.11.2019. Thereafter, one week was consumed in verifying the facts and finally the appeal was filed on 28.11.2019.
15. We are unable to accept that the delay can be condoned for the reasons as stated above. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that being a government organisation, the decisions have to travel through the hierarchal structure. However, in the facts of this case, it is clear that more than the required time was consumed by the authorities in taking the appropriate decision. Clearly, the appellant cannot make a virtue of being indecisive and lackadaisical. There is yet another reason why we feel that the delay is not required to be condoned. This is because it was the appellant’s decision to not file an appeal and part of the delay is attributed to a change of opinion. Merely because another officer decides to override the earlier decisions four months later; is no ground to condone the delay.
16. Clearly, it would be inapposite for this Court to condone the delay RAWAL on such grounds. The Supreme Court in the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.:
"In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
17. The observations made by the Supreme Court resonates with us acutely, given the explanation of the delay provided by the appellant.
18. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and the pending application are dismissed as well.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 7, 2023 RAWAL