OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. versus LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 24-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1045 
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & 
ORS. 
v. 
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 24, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
APPEAL: Appeal by Government Department - Delay in 
filing - Condonation of - Delay of 427 days in filing SLPs by C 
the Government Department - Held: 
The law of limitation 
binds everybody including the Government -
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 D 
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government 
Departments - In the instant case, the certified copy of the 
impugned judgment was applied by the Department after a 
period of nearly four months - There was no explanation for 
not applying for certified copy within reasonable time - There 
E 
was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of 
receipt of the file and the decision taken, there was no 
explanation as to why such delay had occasioned - The 
persons concerned were well conversant with the issues 
involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking 
F 
up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition - The 
claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited 
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be 
accepted in view of the modem technologies being used and 
available -Considering the fact that· there was no proper G 
explanation offered by the Department for the delay except 
mentioning of various dates, the Department miserably failed 
to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to 
condone such a huge delay. 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent no.1 was aggrieved by the decision of 
the appellant-Postal Department regarding the denial of 
concessional rate of postage on certain issue of the 
magazine. Respondent no.1 filed writ petitions before the 
Hi~h Court. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The 
B special leave petitions (SLPs) were filed challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
The respondents raised objection on the conduct of 
the appellants in approaching the Supreme Court after 
C enormous and inordinate delay of 427 days in filing these 
SLPs. In view of the fact that the application for 
condonation of delay in filing the SLPs did not contain 
acceptable and plausible reasons, the Supreme Court 
permitted the appellant-Postal Department to file a "better 
affidavit" explaining the reasons for the same. Pursuant 
D to the same, an affidavit was filed on 26.12.2011. It was 
contended for the appellant that it being a Government 
Department, delay be condoned and an opportunity be 
given to put-forth their stand as to the impugned 
E 
judgment of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the "better affidavit" sworn by 'AP', 
SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, the Department has itself 
mentioned and is aware of the date of the impugned 
F judgment of the High Court as 11.09.2009. 
Even 
according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for 
the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 
and the same was received by the Department on the 
very same day. There is no explanation for not applying 
G for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 
or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that 
the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after 
a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording 
another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing 
H 
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL 1047 
v. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 
adequate material, neither the Department nor the person 
A 
in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the 
certified copy within the prescribed period. The other 
dates mentioned in the affidavit clearly show that there 
was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates 
of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no 
B 
explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. 
Though it was stated by the Department that the delay 
was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine 
difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the 
Department or the person/persons concerned have riot c 
evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court 
by taking appropriate steps. [Para 11] [1063-E-G; 1064-A-
C] 
2. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned 
were well

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.