Law Treats Everyone Equally, State Must Not Be Granted Undue Benefit Of Delay Condonation: Allahabad High Court
While dealing with a delay of 5,743 days in filing Review Petition, the Allahabad High Court held that government departments are obligated to perform duties with diligence which includes filing petitions in a timely manner. It held that law treats private individuals/ entities and government the same and undue benefit of delay condonation must not be granted to the State.
The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed,
“The government agencies 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 the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of the Government Department.”
State of U.P. filed a review petition in a case under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which was decided on 13.11.2009. To explain the delay of 5743 days, it was pleaded that an SLP had been filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 03.05.2024 (on delay of 1633 days as well as on merits). From the date of the order of the Supreme Court, there was a delay of about 489 days in filing the review before the High Court.
Noting that there was no sufficient cause for delay explained in the application, the Court observed that the State had relied on proposal sent to State Government, communication being issued to the lawyers, obtaining records from the advocates at Supreme Court and other bureaucratic mechanism for explaining the delay.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal, Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir and Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, the Court held that the words “sufficient cause” cannot be construed liberally where negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributable to the party seeking such delay condonation.
Further, the Court observed,
“it hardly matters whether litigants is a private party or State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of several years. The government bodies and their agencies should be vigilant in filing the petition within time. There is no need to accept the usual explanation that the petition was kept pending for several years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process.”
Noting that the State was seeking shelter in the slow pace of its machinery, the Court held that the State had acted in a casual and negligent manner. Holding that delay was not sufficiently explained even after dismissal of SLP by the Apex Court, the Court dismissed the review petition.
Case Title: State Of Up And Another v. Mohan Lal [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2025]