'Glaring Case Of State Apathy': Gujarat High Court Rejects Appeal Filed With 837-Days Delay, Warns Officers Against Unproductive Litigation

The Gujarat High Court issued a stern warning to the State officers and directed the Government Pleader to instruct all Assistant Government Pleaders to remain attentive while drafting delay condonation applications, after finding that an appeal was filed with an unexplained delay of 837 days contrary to the State Litigation Policy.The Court was hearing an application seeking to condone delay of 837 days in filing the State appeal against a single judge's order which had set aside the Revenue Department's decision declaring a sale deed invalid. For context, the authority concerned–Collector, Kheda at Nadiad had suo motu cancelled mutation entries and directed proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. At the outset, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray observed that the State appeal was delayed by 837 days for which, no plausible explanation was offered in the condonation application except than that the matter remained pending with the officials of the Revenue Department and the Legal Department regarding the opinion to file the appeal."The procedural delay in filing the present appeal casually explained with the assertions that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant, is wholly unacceptable. We may note that upon noticing frequent filing of delayed letters patent appeals (Intra-court appeals), directions were issued by this Court to formulate a litigation policy to provide a time bound process to form opinion for filing of letters patent appeal by the competent authority, so that the filing of frivolous and highly delayed State appeals may be curbed".The bench noted that there was an amendment in the Gujarat State Litigation Policy notified on 29.06.2024 by the State's Legal Department which provides a checklist regarding proposals to be made by the Legal Department for seeking permission to challenge the judgments before the High Court or the Supreme CourtThe court noted that as per the policy, while putting forward the delay condonation application, the concerned officer representing the State would also identify erring officials responsible for causing delays and would take action for fixing accountability through appropriate disciplinary measures. "Accountability is the touch stone of the State litigation policy notified by the Government notification dated 29.06.2024," it said. Referring to the policy requirements the bench said that there was "complete silence in the affidavit of the officer concerned, Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Nadiad (Rural)" on whether they had taken necessary opinion from the Legal Department in respect of filing of the appeal. It said"There is not even a whisper in the application seeking condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Nadiad (Rural) that the Legal Department had given consent in the matter of filing of the present letters patent appeal and the communication dated 02.07.2024 was sent after obtaining opinion of the Legal Department of the State...The procedure, as prescribed and notified by the State Government, has not been followed by its own officers in filing of the present appeal". The bench further observed that the Single Judge had followed the binding Full Bench judgment in Preetisingh Mukandsingh Shikh v State of Gujarat. Thus the bench said that the the opinion to file appeal against single judge's order should have been taken as an "informed decision with the reasoning as to why the State needed to prefer the letters patent appeal".It thereafter said that the State had filed the appeal with "inordinate unexplained delay" of 837 days and without adverting to the binding decision of the Full Bench. Noting the plea challenging the full bench order is although pending in Supreme Court without any stay, the high court rejected the State's argument that the present appeal may be maintained. It said:"It seems that the opinion to file this Intra-court appeal has been formed at the ends of the Officers of the revenue department of the State. The State cannot be expected to litigate in order to defend contemptuous action of the Officers of the State, who proceed to take decisions on their own whims and fancies, ignoring the binding decisions of the Court of law. The State being the largest litigant in the High Court is required to evaluate the merits on its case independently by scrupulously following the procedure prescribed in its own policy so that institution of frivolous and highly delayed State appeal can be curbed. No doubt, the State has to safeguard its interest where it has a strong footing or where any adverse ruling might have wider policy implications across the State. But it is also the duty and responsibility of the State to save avoidable cost on unproductive litigation and reduce avoidable filing in Courts, which not only results into wastage of the public exchequer but also cause sheer...

'Glaring Case Of State Apathy': Gujarat High Court Rejects Appeal Filed With 837-Days Delay, Warns Officers Against Unproductive Litigation

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Glaring Case Of State Apathy': Gujarat High Court Rejects Appeal Filed With 837-Days Delay, Warns Officers Against Unproductive Litigation

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers