, - High Court (1970)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Judgment Date: 1970-01-01
Court Decision / Holding: Application for condonation of delay rejected; Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns the issue of condonation of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The record shows a protracted sequence of administrative steps after the case was first referred: on 29 September 1984 a certified copy was despatched; the matter was routed between the Ministry of Finance, the Central Agency Section, and the Ministry of Law, with delays in realisation and transfer totaling about 24 days. The Learned Additional Solicitor General advised on 18 December 1984 that the special leave petition should be filed, yet a delay of more than a month and a half occurred before the SLP was filed on 7 July 1985, without any explanation for the earlier delays. The petitioners sought condonation of the delay in January 1985, but the court refused to grant further time for a supplemental affidavit and observed that by November 1986 they had nearly one year and nine months to rectify the defect but failed to do so. In these circumstances, the court found no justification to condone the delay; the application was rejected and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The document closes with the S.R. Petition being dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

,

Contentions of Respondents

,

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R. A mentioned as 22nd July, 84) and it was aft" a period of two months, on 29th September, 1984 that the certified copy was despatched by the Collector of Central Excise to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance referred the Case to the Central Agency Section on l ith October, 1984. But the Central Agency Section sent back the case to the Ministry of Finance with the remark that the same should be sent to the Ministry of Law. This process of realisation B that the case should have been referred to the Ministry of Law and not to the Ministry of Finance took about 24 days and thereafter, again, some time was taken up at the subsequent stages. The learned Additional Solicitor General gave his opinion on 18th December, 1984 It.at the special leave petition should be filed. But even thereafter, there was a delay of more than a month and a halfand on 7th July, 1985, a special leave petition was filed without offering any C explanation for this delay at three stage,;. The Learned Additional Solicitor General requested us to give him an oppo1tunity to file a supplemental affidavit explaining the delay at the three stages. But we do not see why any further time should be granted to the petitioners _tc·_ file a supplemental affidavit. The application 'for condonation of delay wa,; made on 7th January, 1985 and we D are now in November 1986 and the petitioners thus had a period of about one year and nine months to rectify the defect by filing a supplemental affidavit but the petitioners have failed to do so. We do. not under the circumstances find any justification for condoning the delay and the application is. therefore rejected and so is the Special Leave Petition. S.R. Petition dismissed. E # _)_ ## \

,