The Supreme Court of India has rapped the government of Uttar Pradesh, pointing out that the state litigation is not allowed to be so casual with incorrect particulars. A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy were going through a judgement by Allahabad Court that was challenged by the UP government, pertaining to enhancement of the compensation for a piece of land to one Vimla Devi.
An application seeking delay was moved before the Supreme Court as the State’s application was time-barred by 1173 days.
The State had argued that the reason for delay was COVID-19. It also added that the Apex Court had suspended the limitation period till March 31, 2022.
The Bench which was not satisfied with the explanation said that a cursory reference to the pandemic situation is baseless for the reason that no such situation was prevalent on the date of passing of the order by the High Court and at least seven months thereafter”,
The Bench questioned as to why the State had not given any explanation for the delay in filing the application post March 31.
The Court also observed that there is no cause for condonation of a huge delay of 1173 days.
The Court further also found that the date of judgment and particulars stated in the State’s appeal, was not pertaining to the present matter.”
The Court pointed out that it is disturbing to note the application was filed in a casual manner as paragraph 6 of the extraction where the date of judgment and particulars of the appeal are not of the present matter at all.
In the totality of circumstances of this case, we have declined such a prayer for filing better affidavit.
The Court said that the state litigation, in cannot be taken so casually that the application seeking explanation for inordinate delay of 1173 days is filed bereft of all the necessary particulars and is containing incorrect particulars.
The Court remarked that the bench is clear that such matters are filed with a motive to somehow seek a certification of dismissal by the Supreme Court.
Court strongly disapproved such a practice and imposed Rs One Lakh as costs on the State government, to be deposited with the welfare fund of the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association within four weeks.
The Court allowed the State to recover the amount from the persons/officers responsible for filing the petition with inexplicable delay without sufficient cause and any justification.
The Court however clarified that the recovery could be made after depositing the amount of costs.