[2025:RJ-JP:33458-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 858/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Baran (Raj.). 2. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle- Baran (Raj.). 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Mangrol, District Baran(Raj.) ----Appellants Versus Subhash Pareta S/o Shri Ramgopal Ji, Proprietor Of Firm M/s Pareta Associates Aa Class Contractor, Basant Bihar, Kota (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 25/08/2025 1. On 04th August 2025, the following order was passed: “1. Service is not effected. We also find that application for condonation of delay is devoid of any particulars. It only says that Code of Conduct due to State Assembly Election, after order dated 15th September 2023 was passed, was in force and thereafter, again Code of Conduct was imposed on account of Parliamentary Elections and, therefore, as officers were busy in electoral process and conduct of elections, there was delay. We haven’t seen a more ridiculous reason being given by District Collector as well as Engineers of Public Works Department seeking condonation of delay. 2. Counsel seeks liberty to file a better affidavit giving specific details datewise. At the same time, we make it clear that excuse of officers being busy in elections will not be accepted. 3. Additional affidavit be filed and copy of additional affidavit along with condonation of delay application and appeal be served on respondent within two weeks from today. 4. Affidavit of service shall be filed within a week thereafter. 5. Stand over to 25th August 2025.“ [2025:RJ-JP:33458-DB] (2 of 3) [CFA-858/2024] 2. Therefore, the entire basis to justify the delay in the application is that the officers were busy due to the imposition of Code of Conduct on account of Parliamentary Elections and thereafter in electoral process and conduct of elections. In the additional affidavit that has been filed by one Mr. Lakshmi Narayan Meena, who is different from the person who filed the affidavit in support of the application, who was one Mr. Ashok Sanadhya, the blame seems to have been moved on the advocates. The conduct of elections and busy with the elections have been given an entire go by. It is, therefore, quite evident that either the application with the affidavit in support is false or the new affidavit is false. 3. The Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By LRS. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr.1, has held that when an incorrect statement is made in an application seeking condonation of delay, that itself is sufficient to reject the Application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Apex Court held, “that a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on its part by condoning delay”. Paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment read as under: “11. Whether the respondent made incorrect statement in the application seeking condonation of delay? There is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent being the beneficiary of the acquisition has been duly impleaded as a party-respondent in the reference cases as is required in law. It not only appeared in the matter through a properly instructed counsel but also filed its written statement opposing the claim for enhancement of compensation but did not choose to lead any evidence whatsoever. In the application filed in the High Court the plea taken by the respondent is as under: 1 (2008) 17 SCC 448 [2025:RJ-JP:33458-DB] (3 of 3) [CFA-858/2024] "The applicant submits that, although the applicant being the acquiring body, was arrayed as the opponent in the said reference, the Opponent 4 herein (original Opponent 1) SLAO or his subordinate contested the said reference by filing a written statement. Therefore, this applicant was unaware about the stand taken by SLAO as well as the impugned judgment and award." This averment in the application on the face of it is totally incorrect. 12. The Law & Judiciary Department as early as on 13-4 2000 i.e. to say within the period of 15 days from the date of the award of the Reference Court communicated its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference Court and communicated the same to all the concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication. Having received the said communication, the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any steps for filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made totally incorrect statement in the application filed in the High Court. We express our reservation as to the manner in which a public authority conducted itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief from the court. In our considered opinion, incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on its part by condoning delay. [See Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India]” (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the circumstances, though we would refrain from issuing perjury notice to either of the officers, the application is dismissed. 5. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/10