Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd & Anr. vs State Bank of Patiala on 3 October 2019

MA 112 of 2017 in SA 103 of 2017

Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.

Vs.

State Bank of Patiala

03.10.2019

Item No.55

Present: Sh. Keshav Kataria, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh. Rahul Garg, Adv. proxy for Sh. DK Singal, Counsel for the Resp. Bank.

Today a new counsel appears for the Applicants and files his Vakalatnama.

IA 575 of 2018

The Applicant has filed this Misc. Application for restoration of the SA setting aside order dt.28.03.2017 for which this have been filed for condoning the delay of 63 days. The Applicant has prayed that since this order was passed on 28.03.2017 when the case was fixed on which date the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on the part of the Applicant, a copy of which was received in the 3rd week of April, 2017. After receiving copy, the same was sent to higher official for permission to file the application for restoration which took time and limitation period lapsed. The Applicant has stated that it is not intentional delay but due to procedural delay and prayed for condoning the delay.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before the prayer of the Applicant could be considered, it has been found that on 28.03.2017, a detailed order was passed which is reproduced below:

“Item No.22 28.03.2017 Present: None for the applicant Shri D.K. Singal, counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2 Shri Dipinder Singh, proxy counsel for Shri I.P Singh, counsel for the respondent no.3 & 4

The counsel for the respondent bank has clarified that vide order dated 26.03.2014 this court has allowed the sale but also directed not to appropriate the amount of the sale and now when the property has been sold through successful sale for sum of Rs.3,80,70,000/- out of which Rs.90,20,000/- has been received towards the consideration of plant and machinery, the same should at least, as the financial year going to be closed, be allowed to appropriate. It will be fruitful at this stage. Moreover, matter is pending since more than three years. I have heard the counsel for the respondent bank and otherwise satisfied on his contention, but it could not be ignored that applicants are not coming forward to pursue the case. Today also none appeared on behalf of applicant. There is no request either for pass over or for adjournment even after 3rd pass over. I have perused the file which reflects that none is appearing for the applicant since last three consecutive dates also. Otherwise also, despite selling the properties the respondent bank is still struggling to get the benefits of the sale proceeds which could not be prohibited endlessly, therefore watching the matter in totality & the long absence of applicant who seems no more interested to pursue the matter. Waited sufficiently. Since none is present on behalf of the applicant to press upon this application it appears that applicant has lost interest in this case, hence case is dismissed due to non prosecution on the part of the applicant. Let copy of this order be given dasti to the respondent bank and through registered post to the applicant and thereafter file be consigned to record.”

It was not the first time when the Applicant was not present rather on 24.03.2017 when the matter was taken up none was present. Even before that on 28.11.2016, the Applicants were not present. Therefore, watching continued absence from the proceedings, the matter was dismissed.

In fact order dt.28.03.2017 was passed in open court and copies of which were sent to the parties, the Applicant has now chosen a novel way stating that the copy of order was received in the “third week of April” which is a vague statement. Moreover, it seems as if the higher officials are living in hieararchy and did not pay heed and an urgent intention despite having a copy of order did not file the application but took a lame excuse of procedural delay in getting the permission to file such application. The conduct of the Applicants could be judged from this fact that they have changed 3-4 counsel till date just to create hurdles in the finalisation of the case because whenever a new counsel appears he asks for the time to go through the case at his own convenient time for which the Applicants have been so far successful in getting the matter stretched.

I am enlightened by the duly quoted but not reported guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court which aptly crystalise the attitude of such officials/departments: “The Govt. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their dues with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for govt. departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few….. In our view it is the right time to inform all the govt bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was Bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process”. The bench added “The Govt. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their dues with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for govt. departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. “All this shows sheer and utter negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the case and such a conduct of the appellant is highly reprehensible.”(CJI A.K. Sikri & R.K. Jain)

Hence, finding no sufficient ground or cause to condone the delay, the Application is dismissed.

MA 112 of 2017

Since IA for condoning the delay has been dismissed, MA stands disposed of accordingly.

File be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh

04.10.2019/cms