(T.S. Thakur, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
State of Tamil Nadu _____________ Appellant
v.
Anbai Kingston Philips & Ors. _____ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.(s). 1960 of 2015, decided on February 17, 2015
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5048 of 2014]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, dismissing S.A.(MD) No. SR 17828 of 2005 as barred by limitation.
3. The plaintiffs-respondents no. 1 to 5 filed O.S. No. 33 of 1985 for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of property comprising 110.62 acres of land underlying Survey nos. 3056 to 3059 and 3060 of Ponmana Village in the District of Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. The suit was contested by the defendant but eventually decreed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before the District Court at Kanyakumari which too failed and was dismissed by the said court. Second Appeal (MD) No. SR 17828 of 2005 was then preferred before the High Court of Madras which came to be transferred to the Madurai Bench of the High Court for hearing and disposal.
4. It is common ground that the appeal before the High Court was filed within the period of limitation prescribed for the same but on account of certain defects in the appeal memorandum and accompanying documents, the papers were returned to counsel for the appellant-State for rectification and representation. The return of the papers was taken by counsel for the appellant-State but the same appear to have been re-presented without doing the needful. That process it appears continued over a period of time resulting in a delay of 3412 days in the re-presentation of the second appeal papers. An application for condonation of the delay was in the above backdrop filed before the High Court by the appellant-State but the same was declined by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in this appeal. The High Court was of the view that there was no cogent or acceptable reason forthcoming from the application for condoning such an inordinate delay in the refiling of the papers, after removal of the defects. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the said order, as mentioend earlier.
5. When the matter initially came up before us for preliminary hearing on 14th December, 2012, we had directed counsel for the appellant-State to take instructions whether any enquiry had been conducted at any level by any authority to identify the persons responsible for the delay of 3412 days in refiling of the appeal papers before the High Court and whether any action was taken or was proposed to be taken against the persons responsible for the same. An affidavit, pursuant to the said direction, was filed by one Mr. T. Ritto Cyriac, District Forest Officer, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil, which upon consideration was found to be unsatisfactory by us. This Court noted that engagement of a counsel by the State Government did not necessarily mean that the litigant had proved his diligence in the matter especially when the litigant happened to be a resourceful party like the State Government. It was also observed that an enquiry, into the circumstances leading to an inordinate delay in the re-filing of the appeal papers, was called for especially when the property in-question comprised a large extent of 110.62 acres of land which according to the State was forest land sought to be falsely claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Such a huge and valuable piece of property ought to have engaged the attention of the authorities not only in the matter of protecting the same against any fake claim by any third party but also in the matter of pursuing the litigation before the higher courts in an appropriate manner and diligently. We had in that view directed Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Madras, to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances leading to the inordinate delay in refiling of the appeal papers before the High Court and authorised the enquiry officer to examine the relevant records, summon witnesses and record their depositions.
6. The Registrar (Vigilance) has pursuant to the above direction not only conducted an enquiry but submitted a detailed report, from a reading whereof it appears that the entire blame, for the delay in the re-presentation of papers and removal of defects, has been placed upon two range officers posted at Kanniyakumari Forest Division, Nagercoil, during the period 1999 to 2006 and 2006 to 2011.
7. Appearing on behalf of the Appellant-State, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the State was wholly unaware of the inaction and/or dereliction of duties by the range officers concerned and it was ready and willing to take suitable disciplinary action against them. It was submitted that indifference and neglect on the part of the said officers should not be a ground to non-suit the appellant-State and deny a hearing to it on merits before the High Court. It was urged that the State is also ready and willing to undertake whatever reforms are required in the matter of filing of appeals to ensure that such like incidents do not recur in future. It was contended that although the enquiry report does not suggest any dereliction on the part of any higher officer in the State Government, this Court could examine that aspect by directing a further enquiry by the enquiry officer or independently to ensure whether those responsible for such an inordinate delay, as was noticed in the present case, do not escape punishment. It was on that basis submitted by Mr. Prasad that this Court could, in the circumstances of the case especially the fact that the appeal had been filed within the period of limitation prescribed, condone the delay in the re-presentation of the papers subject to payment of costs if any considered just and proper and remit the matter back to the High Court for hearing the appeal on merits.
8. On behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs it was argued by Mr. A.D.N. Rao that the neglect on the part of the officers of the State Government for removal of the defects and in re-presentation of the papers within a reasonable time should not work to the prejudice of the plaintiffs-respondents. It was further submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs were privy to any dereliction by any officer so as to warrant an order of condonation of the delay. It was submitted that if the matter is remitted back to the High Court it would take a few years for the court to dispose of the matter on merits thereby delaying grant of relief to the respondents further. In the circumstances, it would be better if the High Court was requested to expedite the hearing and disposal of the matter as far as possible within a period of one year.
9. The appeal, as mentioned earlier, was filed within the stipulated period of limitation but could not be re-presented for a long time as the defects were not rectified. The question all the same is whether there was sufficient reason for the delay in doing so. The fact that delay is inordinate stretching over nearly 10 years, cannot be denied. At the same time, it is fairly well-settled that the State functions in an impersonal fashion and that the ordinary standards, applicable to a litigant pursuing his own case, do not at times apply stricto sensu to the action or inaction of the State. That apart the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court has not in the instant case suggested any collusion at the level of the State Government. What appears to have actually happened is that the appeal papers were presented within the time but repeatedly re-presented without fully removing the defects, in which process there was considerable delay. This was mainly because the officers concerned do not appear to have acted diligently. There is no gainsaying that the two range officers who have been indicted in the enquiry report were themselves under the supervisory control of higher officers who ought to have looked into the matter and ensured that the papers were refiled in time. Suffice it to say, we are in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) inclined to condone the delay no matter inordinate in its length. We, however, do so subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) which amount shall be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, if there is any, failing which with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
10. Having said that, we consider it necessary to take the process of identifying those responsible for the delay to its logical conclusion. The report no doubt confines the charge of dereliction to the two range officers, mentioned earlier. We are of the view that the range officers being themselves under the supervisory control of their higher officers the latter were as much responsible for ensuring that the former perform their duties diligently. The enquiry report has not gone into that aspect. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Tamil Nadu, shall call for an explanation of the officers who were, during the relevant period, supervising the two range officers, mentioned in the report. The officers would be called upon to explain as to why they were unable to take note of the neglect/dereliction of duties by the range officers concerned and explain their failure to do so.
11. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High court and condone the delay in the refiling of the papers before the High Court. The appeal shall now be heard by the High Court on merits.
12. We grant to the Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, State of Tamil Nadu, two months’ time to submit to this Court the explanation of the officer concerned in terms of the direction contained in the body of this order.
13. The explanation shall be placed before us for further directions no sooner the same are received. We hope and trust that the State Government would look into the question of carrying out suitable reforms in the system to prevent delay in the filing of cases on behalf of the State and resultant misgiving about the bonafides of the State itself.
14. Since the matter has been hanging fire for a long time we request the High Court to make an endeavour to expedite the disposal of the appeal as far as possible within a period of one year from the date the papers are received by it. No costs.
———
