Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1436 of 2025 Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 State of H.P. ...Petitioner Versus Vipul Lakhan and ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The State has filed the present application for condonation of 475 days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the judgment was examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, Solan, who found that the case was not fit for filing the revision. The matter was referred to the State Government, and the Law Department opined on 08.01.2024 that there was no point in agitating the matter further. The file was returned to the District Magistrate/SP, Solan on 07.02.2024. The victim 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) made a representation for the re-examination of the judgment. The file was sent to the Government for consideration. The Law Department returned the file on 30.07.2024 with some observations. These observations were clarified, and the file was sent to the Law Department. The Law Department opined that the case was fit for filing a revision. The competent authority decided to prefer a revision. The delay occurred in filing the revision because the matter was processed at various levels. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent by condoning the delay. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 2. I have heard Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioner /State, who submitted that the matter was processed in the Home Department, Law Department and District Magistrate, Solan. It took some time to process the file. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by the condonation of the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed, the delay in filing the revision be condoned, and the revision be listed for hearing. 3. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) 4. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 117: (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 101: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 84: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849 that the government can be given some leeway while condoning the delay but it cannot seek condonation without a sufficient cause. It was observed at page 656: “2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counselling to the Government and government authorities has fallen on deaf ears, i.e. the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the statutes prescribed. 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji [LAO v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107]]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649] wherein the Court observed as under : (Postmaster General case [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649], SCC pp. 573-74, paras 27-30) “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide 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 government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay, except mentioning various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” Eight years hence, the judgment is still unheeded!” 4. It was specifically mentioned in the application seeking condonation of the delay that the matter was examined by the Public Prosecutor and thereafter by the Law Department. The learned Public Prosecutor categorically stated that the case was not fit for filing the revision. A similar opinion was given by the Law Department as well. The matter was again processed, and this time, the Law Department changed its opinion and stated that the revision may be filed before the High Court. 5. There is nothing on record to show the basis of the change. It is not explained that if the Department had advised not to pursue the matter and not to file a revision, how the opinion was changed that a revision has to be filed in the present matter. There is no averment that any mistake occurred while giving the first opinion, and it was necessary to give the 2nd 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20625 ) opinion. Once the department had decided not to pursue the matter as per the opinion of the learned Public Prosecutor and the Law Department, the matter ended. Taking up the matter again and reaching a different conclusion without any basis will not constitute a sufficient cause. The matter would have been different if the delay had occurred due to administrative lapses. However, in the present case, the government had taken a conscious decision after the receipt of report of the learned Public Prosecutor and the Law Department that the revision was not to be filed and sent the case file to the learned District Magistrate/SP Solan; hence, the subsequent steps taken under the representation made by the victim cannot be said to be sufficient cause justifying the condonation of delay. 6. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. 7. Since the delay in filing the revision has not been condoned, therefore, the revision is disposed of as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) 1st July 2025 Judge (Saurav pathania)