University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 916 days delay in filing the appeal. Replies to the application have been filed by the respondent No.3 / DDA, respondent No.10 / DMRC, respondent No.12 / Young Builders Pvt. Limited. Rejoinders to the replies filed by the aforesaid respondents have also been filed by the appellant University.

2. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant University submitted that the present appeal has been filed on March 01, 2018 to assail the judgment dated April 27, 2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2743/2012 after a delay of 916 days which was principally due to the reasons as explained in the application and the rejoinder to the reply to the application, albeit, the hour to hour-minutes to minutes cause is not pleaded but bona fide factum of situation beyond the appellant control has been delineated. According to him, the present appeal is different from other litigations preferred or contested by the appellant. It is only the case where the approval from the Executive Council of the University of Delhi was required to be taken and before such approval various deliberations preceded so as to apprise the Executive Council of the different shades of the subject matter. Being the statutory body and adherence to the just method of decision making requires consultation with effective department of the University itself and therefore, the final say in the matter rest with the Executive Council which includes the Senior most Deans, democratically elected representatives of Teachers, Chancellor’s nominee, Visitor’s nominee, Registrar, Treasurer, Director South Campus and Vice Chancellor. He stated that there is no negligence or deliberate inaction or red-tapism on the part of the appellant. He stated that it is a settled law qua the condonation of delay that it is not the degree of delay but the cause of delay which assumes significance. In other words, it is the sufficiency of reason which is the bed rock for deciding the condonation. He in support of his application has narrated the following facts: (a) The judgment of learned Single Judge dated April 27, 2015 was sent by the counsel representing the University quite late. It was then placed before the legal cell of the University for examining the matter and deciding the further course of action. After a detailed scrutiny which took time since the case filed comprising of approximately 1001 pages was required to be examined. (b) After going through the voluminous paper book it was opined that the matter be referred to Vice Chancellor for consideration and pursuant thereto a meeting was held wherein it was decided that the matter needs to be dealt with holistically having regard to all the issues decided by the learned Single Judge.

(c) The issue could not be taken up for consideration as the post of Vice Chancellor had fallen vacant w.e.f. October 28, 2015 and the important issue could be taken up for consideration after the new Vice Chancellor had assumed office and taken stock of things.

(d) That the selection process of Vice Chancellor had taken considerable time as there are specific procedures to be followed for the same. (e) That on March 10, 2016 the new Vice Chancellor joined the office and in order to ensure democratic functioning of the University, it was decided by the newly appointed Vice Chancellor to constitute a Committee. The terms of reference of the five member committee was to recommend the course of action to the University in the light of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the University. (f) The Committee gave its report on November 11, 2016 which included the University to take appropriate legal professional opinion and guidance. (g) That based on the report of the Committee it was decided that the subject matter be referred to the Executive Council for the final decision in the matter. (h) The matter was placed before the Executive Council on February 28, 2017 when the subject matter was discussed. It was again discussed on March 07, 2017 where a decision was taken to prefer an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 27, 2015. In the meanwhile, representations were received from differently abled students and Faculty in the light of the proposed project by the private builder at the very main entrance of the University. Such representations were required to be considered and were accordingly forwarded to the Equal Opportunity cell for consideration.

(i) The said cell examined the issue in the context of the

Disability Act 2016 and probable outcome which the project in contraction with the Master Plan will entail to the vulnerable section of society. The Equal Opportunity cell submitted its report on April 28, 2017. The same was placed before the Competent Authority for a decision regarding the future course of action. The report of the equal opportunity cell was considered at various levels of the University which process entailed a period of five to six months before a considered opinion could be generated by the University of Delhi. The representations and the reports could be finally considered by the University of Delhi during the end of the year 2017. (j) In the interregnum an accident occurred at Chattra Marg which led to the preparation of a report by the office of the Proctor of the University dated February 05, 2018 wherein it was recommended that the area be declared as accident prone. A reference is made about the filing of a PIL by differently abled persons and the order passed therein. (k) A legal opinion was sought, draft petition was prepared which thereafter got vetted and settled by the Senior Counsel. The finalized appeal was considered at the highest level of the University for taking a final decision which entailed sometime resulting in the filing of the appeal on March 01, 2018.

3. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan endeavor was to highlight that the aforesaid facts cannot be said to be accentuated by any inaction much less the deliberate one, in the delay. He also submitted the aforesaid facts suggest that all the authorities and bodies, who have taken part in the decision making process have exercised their independent mind after going through the files which approximately consisted of 1001 pages. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 to contend that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been enacted by the legislature in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits. According to him, the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.

4. It was also the submission of Mr. Ramji Srinivasan that no prejudice is caused to respondent No.12 M/s Young Builders Pvt. Limited inasmuch as no rights of the said respondent are frustrated if the delay is condoned. Even after elapse of 3 years 19 days of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, not a single brick is laid for construction at the project site in question and when the repercussion for the proposed construction is violation of certain rights of public at large in addition to specific bars contained in MPD-2021, it is essential that the matter is heard on merits. He also stated that the appellant University being in public service, any relief to the appellant will benefit public at large and neither any explanation was offered by the respondent No.12 justifying the public purpose for which the land in question was acquired from the Ministry of Defence and subsequently used for parking nor disclosed the identities of the members of the Group Housing Society for whose benefit the respondents have sought to prevail over the vital interest of the appellant and beneficiaries of its perpetual service.

5. In substance it is his submission that important question affecting public interest cannot be defeated on technical objections raised by the builder who has not laid even a single brick till date. According to him, the site in question, given the vast traffic congestion in the nearby area, was used for parking and it has been stopped for no reason thus causing an unbearable disservice to society. He also stated that the site in question was originally owned by the Ministry of Defence and the site was acquired for “public purpose” at “public expense” but it has fallen into the hands of a private builder through a dubious and illegal process.

6. Finally, it is his submission that the cause of delay was unintentional due to the appellant’s limitation being public body to ensure a fair decision making process through Executive Council and the absence of Vice Chancellor both fall beyond the control of the University and shall not deprive a better cause to be lost on mere technicalities when no prejudice let alone the disadvantage suffered by the private builder as they themselves have allowed the time period “free from any pending lis” to be wasted for the reasons best known to them.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.12 has drawn our attention to the reply filed by the said respondent to the application and submitted that the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that no justification, let alone “sufficient cause” whatsoever is offered by the appellant herein for delay of more than 1,013 days in filing the present appeal as the statutory period of the 30 days expired on May 26, 2015 itself under clause 4 of Part A(a) of Chapter 1, Volume V of the Delhi High Court Rules.

8. According to him, the reasons given for delay in filing the appeal are not only vague and lacks in material particulars but are also incorrect. The appellant is seeking condonation of delay more than 1000 days on the ground that the Apex Body of the appellant could not convene a meeting to decide on the appeal and hence, due to the said reason approval for filing the appeal could not be taken. It is submitted that the public institutions / government bodies such as Delhi University are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The bureaucratic delay and inactions cannot be a ground to seek condonation of delay. A perusal of the application would reveal that there was no bona fide effort on part of the appellant to file the present appeal and explanation that the file was kept pending for several months / years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tapism and approval cannot be ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

9. It is also submitted that apart from above, the falsity of stand of appellant is evident from the fact that during the period 2015 till December 2017, appellant has filed at least 27 writ petitions and 11 Letters Patent Appeals before this Court as per official website of this Court. In addition to the above, 392 cases were filed against the appellant and the same were defended by the appellant before this Court, which is evident from print out of website of this Court i.e. Annexure-R-1 of reply filed by the respondent No.12.

10. He stated that similarly, during said period, at least 31 number of cases were either filed by the Delhi University before the Supreme Court or defended by it. Hence, to allege that due to non-availability of Vice Chancellor or non-convening of meeting appeal could not be filed is incorrect and in fact a deliberate false statement. Further, if contention of the appellant is taken to be correct, if appears that no proceeding or work or decision has been taken by the appellant during the period, for which condonation of delay is sought. Even as per admissions in the application by appellant, there has been gross negligence and deliberate inaction as well as lack of bona fides on part of the appellant University.

11. It is submitted that in Para 3(F) of application, even as per best case of the appellant, the appellant got alleged approval on February 28, 2017 / March 07, 2017 for filing appeal but there is no explanation as to why the said appeal was not filed immediately thereafter and was filed after more than a year (approx.363 days) from said alleged approval, which was filed only on March 01, 2018. The appellant is under obligation to explain each and every day of the delay but in the present case, there is no explanation at all. It is submitted that on this ground alone, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. He also stated that it is settled law that the condonation of delay cannot be a matter of course and that the State / Public bodies like Delhi University cannot claim any preferential or special treatment. 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 department. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563; Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 and Union of India & Ors. vs. Prithwi Singh & Ors. Diary No.8754 of 2018 to contend that the alleged justification of the appellant on account of inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes, transferring files, passing resolutions, convening meetings cannot be accepted, which binds everybody, including appellant University.