The state of Uttar Pradesh and others had challenged the May 2019 verdict of the high court which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based woman for her land that was acquired by the government.
The Supreme Court has rebuked the Uttar Pradesh government over an inordinate delay of 1,173 days in filing a petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and that too with "incorrect particulars", saying State litigation cannot be taken "so casually".
While rejecting the plea with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, the apex court said it has no doubt that such matters are filed in a "cursory manner" so the petitions are dismissed.
It also chastised the state government over the "casual manner" in which the application seeking condonation of delay was filed.
"We are left with no doubt that such matters are filed in a cursory manner to somehow seek certification of dismissal by the Supreme Court. We thoroughly disapprove of such a practice and feel necessary to impose costs on the petitioners," a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said.
The state of Uttar Pradesh and others had challenged the May 2019 verdict of the high court which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based woman for her land that was acquired by the government.
In its order passed on December 12, the top court noted the petition filed by the state was time-barred by a period of 1,173. It took on record the application seeking condonation of delay.
Referring to the contents of the application, the bench observed a bare look will leave no one in doubt that there is not even a "semblance of cause, what to say of sufficient cause" for condonation of a huge delay of 1,173 days in filing the petition.
It noted that the petition was filed on October 31, 2022, against the verdict pronounced in May 2019.
The application seeking condonation of delay said, among others things, that due to the Covid-19 pandemic the special leave petition (SLP) could not be filed immediately.
"A cursory reference to the pandemic situation is baseless for the reason that no such situation was prevalent on the date of passing of the order by the high court and at least seven months thereafter," the bench said.
"Moreover, the suspended limitation period due to the pandemic came to an end on March 31, 2022, and there is no explanation whatsoever for an inordinate delay even thereafter," it said.
Observing that it is "disturbing" to notice that the application was filed in a casual manner, the bench referred to a paragraph in the application and noted the date of judgment and particulars of the appeal were not of the present matter at all.
"Obviously, such incorrect particulars have occurred because of preparation of the application in a casual manner, essentially with reproduction or copying of the contents from any other application," it said.
The bench noted the counsel appearing for the petitioners had admitted that the application has not been filed with all the relevant and correct particulars and prayed for time for filing a better affidavit.
"In the totality of circumstances of this case, we have declined such a prayer for filing the better affidavit. The State litigation, in our view, cannot be taken so casually that the application seeking to explain an inordinate delay of 1,173 days is filed bereft of all the necessary particulars and is containing incorrect particulars," the bench said.
"Thus, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected and this petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs 1,00,000 to be deposited by the petitioner-State in the welfare fund of the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association within four weeks from today," it said.
The bench left it open for the state to recover the cost from the officers responsible for filing the petition with an "inexplicable delay" without sufficient cause and without any justification.