Today, On 3rd September, The Gujarat High Court criticized the State for failing to justify a five-year delay in filing an appeal. The court ordered the principal secretary of the State’s Revenue Department to conduct an inquiry and identify the officials responsible for the delay.
The Gujarat High Court , on Tuesday, expressed concern over the Gujarat government’s inability to justify a delay of 1939 days in filing an appeal. The State submitted an application seeking condonation for the delay, but failed to provide any explanation for the lengthy lapse.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi criticized the manner in which the affidavit prepared by the government pleader, noting that it lacked any clarification on who advised filing the appeal after a delay of over five years.
Read Also: Delhi High Court: Delay in Rape Cases Prolongs Victims Suffering
The Court stated,
“The officer of the State cannot withhold necessary communications from the court, intending to produce them only when deemed necessary, as mentioned in the current application. There is no explanation whatsoever regarding who advised filing this appeal after a delay of 1939 days,”
As a result, the Court directed the principal secretary of the State’s Revenue Department to conduct an inquiry and hold the responsible officials accountable.
The Bench ordered,
“We therefore instruct the principal secretary of the Revenue Department to investigate the manner in which this appeal was filed after a delay of 1939 days, without providing any explanation to this court, which contradicts the state’s litigation policy. The accountability of the officials responsible must be established through this inquiry, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against them,”
The Court also cautioned the State’s lawyers to exercise greater care when presenting affidavits seeking condonation of delays.
The Court stated,
“The office of the government pleader is hereby warned against adopting a casual approach when filing responses or affidavits explaining delays. No leniency will be granted to the government pleader’s office merely because they represent the State. On the contrary, they must be more diligent and aware of their responsibility in representing the State’s interests in litigation. The State’s costs should not suffer due to their negligence. This order follows repeated oral warnings given by the court to the learned government pleader and assistant government pleaders during arguments in various matters,”
The State filed the appeal challenging an order issued by a single judge of the High Court in 2017. After dismissing the State’s application, Chief Justice Agarwal expressed concern about the State’s casual approach in responding to the Court or filing affidavits.
She remarked,
“Just because you represent the government pleader’s office, no special leniency can be granted to you,”
Advocate BM Mangukiya, representing the respondent, commented on the importance of acknowledging when orders are indefensible.,
“In the 1990s, we used to say that if an order is not sustainable, the court may quash it. That was the spirit the Government Pleader’s office should maintain. I was part of it. We must tell the Hon’ble Court when these orders cannot be defended.”
In response, the State’s counsel explained that he had refrained from arguing on the merits of the case.
He said,
“That is precisely what I have done. I have not argued on the merits at all. I am conscious,”
Chief Justice Agarwal then advised advocates on the importance of discretion in court.
Read Also: Lawyers Oppose ‘Communication’ Requesting Judges to Delay Final Orders During Vacations
She added,
“You are not supposed to reply to everything. Sometimes, advocates need to remain silent. Learning the art of silence in court is also a part of advocacy. It helps avoid inviting the court’s displeasure. The more you speak, the more we dictate orders,”
Advocates BM Mangukiya and Bela A. Prajapati represented the respondent.