1 2025:HHC:26710 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 350 of 2025 and LPA No.519 of 2025 Decided on: 07.08.2025 State of H.P & others ......applicants Versus Ashish Kumar …..respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4090 of 2019 titled Ashish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 13.05.2024. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. In the application, it has been averred that since the learned Single Judge directed consideration of the case on account of the application submitted in 2006, keeping in view the policy in vogue at the time of death, the requisite documents had been sought from the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra on 15.06.2024, which were duly received on 21.06.2024. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Administrative Department Health on 03.09.2024 and an opinion was sought from the Law Department on 10.09.2024 and the advice was conveyed on 24.09.2024. 3. Resultantly, a decision was taken to assail the order vide letter dated 03.10.2024. Since, the certified copy had not been applied for earlier, it was accordingly applied on 19.12.2024 through the office of the Advocate General. Therefore there was delay of 188 days in filing the appeal which was ultimately filed on 25.12.2024. 4. The application has been opposed by way of reply filed on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners, on the ground that each and every day’s delay has to be explained. Only the consideration has been directed by the learned 3 Single Judge while quashing the earlier orders. Certified copy had also not been applied within reasonable period and therefore there was lack of diligence. 5. Another aspect that now has been brought to our notice is that inspite of the appeal having been filed in the Execution Petition No.108 of 2025 titled Ashish Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, filed by the writ petitioners- respondents, an undertaking was given by the Additional Advocate General while accepting notice in the said Execution Petition, that orders would be complied with. Consequently, vide order dated 21.03.2025, the Execution Petition was disposed of and liberty was given to take appropriate action for lawful implementation of the judgment. The order in Execution Petition reads as under:- “By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.4090 of 2019, titled as Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondents to process the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of application submitted in the year, 2006 and thereafter, same shall be considered in terms of Policy in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid order, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. 6. Once the State itself had conceded to the fact that order would be complied with before the learned Single Judge way back on 21.03.2025, we are of the considered opinion that the delay as such in filing of the appeal is not liable to be condoned, as the lack of diligence is thus apparent of the contesting appellant-department. 7. On the one hand, the appeal has been preferred and before the learned Single Judge it has not been brought to the notice that the appeal already stood filed on 25.12.2023 though it had to be listed since the present appeal only came up for the first time on 22.05.2025 as apparently it was not even complete at the initial stage. 8. Since the objections had been raised by the office and it was only refiled on 11th February, 2025. 5 9. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it was held that law of limitation is founded on public policy and resultantly the appeal was allowed and the order condoning the delay as such of four years in filing of the appeal was set aside by holding that in the absence of any plausible/tangible explanation for long delay of more than four years in filing of appeal, there was no valid reasons to condone the delay. 9(i). In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, the principles as such have been laid down that the department could not take advantage of impersonal machinery or the inherited bureaucratic methodology and the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:- “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 plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why 6 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 bonafide, 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 bonafide 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 and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 10. Thus, the principles of Law on Limitation has been laid down in the judgments in Chief Postmaster General and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries cases (supra), 7 wherein it has been held that if the State is negligent as such in filing and pursuing the cases, the application for condonation of delay is not liable to be allowed. 11. In such circumstances, an undertaking has been given before the learned Single Judge, we do not feel that it would be appropriate as such to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits, on account of the contrary stand of the State itself. 12. At this stage, learned Advocate General present in the Court, submits that the period of consideration be extended for a period of two months from today so that the Contempt Petition can be rendered infructuous which has been preferred by the writ petitioner. Keeping in view the gracious concession given by the learned Advocate General, we grant the same and bind down the State with the same statement. 13. Resultantly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as also, the Letters Patent Appeal. 8 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 07, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge