Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VISVESWARAYA IRON & STEEL LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/11/1986
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION:
1987 AIR 669 1987 SCR (1) 367
1987 SCC Supl. 192 1986 SCALE (2)1253
ACT:
Practice and Procedure--Delay in filing the Special
Leave Petition not explained in the petition--Party desiring
to file a supplemental affidavit to explain it, when the
case is called for, after a lapse of nearly two years,
hearing-Delay cannot be condoned--Supreme Court Rules, 1966,
Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 5 of the Limitation
Act.
HEADNOTE:
Dismissing the SLP and CMP, the Court,
HELD: In the absence of any ground having been made out
in the application for the condonation of delay in filing
the Special Leave Petition, filed on 7.1.85, excepting the
listing of dates on which different departments took steps
in passing on the file, the Supreme Court cannot exercise
its inherent powers under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the
Supreme Court Rules read with section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 and condone delay. Nor would it grant permission
upon oral request to file a supplemental affidavit after a
lapse of nearly two years. [368C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition For Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No. 2448 Of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.84 of the High
court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1267/84.
B. Datta, ASG. and Ms. S. Relan for the Petitioner.
The following Order was delivered
This Special Leave Petition has been filed beyond the
period prescribed by the Rules for filing a special leave
petition. The petitioner has flied an application for condo-
nation of delay in filing the special leave petition. There
are no grounds made out in the application for condonation
of delay and the only material set out in the application is
the list of dates as starting from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of the judgment upto the dates of filing
of the Special Leave Petition. It appears from the list of
dates that the certified copy was received by the Collector
of Central Excise on 22nd July, 1984 (wrongly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
368
mentioned as 22nd July, 84) and it was after a period of two
months, on 29th September, 1984 that the certified copy was
despatched by the Collector of Central Excise to the Minis-
try of Finance. The Ministry of Finance referred the Case to
the Central Agency Section on 15th 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 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 that the special leave petition should
be filed. But even thereafter, there was a delay of more
than a month and a half and on 7th July, 1985, a special
leave petition was filed without offering any explanation
for this delay at three stages. The Learned Additional
Solicitor General requested us to give him an opportunity 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 to file a supplemental affida-
vit. The application for condonation of delay was made on
7th January, 1985 and we 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 affi-
davit 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.
369