Gujarat High Court raps State for failure to explain 5-year delay in filing appeal

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday took exception to the Gujarat government's failure to explain a delay of 1,939 days in filing an appeal before the court [State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vaghari Laxmanbhai Ramjibhai & Anr.]..The State had an application before the court seeking condonation of delay of 1,939 days without offering any explanation regarding the delay. .A bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was not impressed by manner in which the affidavit was drafted by the government pleader without giving any explanation as to who had given the opinion to file the appeal after a delay of more than 5 years. “The officer of the State cannot keep necessary communications away from the court to seek leave of the court to produce the same as and when necessity arises as stated in the present application. There is no explanation at all as to who has given opinion on filing of the instant appeal after the delay of 1939 days," the Court said.Therefore, it directed the principal secretary of the Revenue Department of the State to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility on the erring officials."We therefore call upon the principal secretary of the Revenue Department to inquire into the mood and the manner in which the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 1939 days that too without explanation offered to this court, as against the litigation policy of the state. The accountability and responsibility of the erring officials shall be fixed in the inquiry to be conducted by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department and appropriate disciplinary action shall be initiated against them,” the Bench directed. The Court also warned the State’s lawyers to be careful while presenting affidavits seeking condonation of delay."The office of the government pleader is issued a warning not to adopt a casual approach in filing response to the court or affidavits explaining the delay as no leverage can be granted to the government pleader office just because they are representing the State rather they are required to be more careful and conscious that they are representing the office of the State in the litigation instituted by the State and the cost of the State cannot be suffered at their hands. This order is passed after repeated oral warming given by the court from time to time to the learned government pleader, to assistant government pleaders at the time of arguments in different matters.".The appeal was filed by the State challenging an order passed by a single-judge of the High Court in the year 2017.After the Court dismissed the State's application and recorded an order regarding the same, CJ Agarwal orally lamented that the State cannot be casual in giving replies to the Court or filing affidavits in the court. "Just because you are the office of the government pleader, no liberty can be granted to you,” she said. .Advocate BM Mangukiya, who had appeared for the respondent in the matter, said,"In the 1990s, we used to say that if the order is not sustainable, the court may quash it. That was the spirit that should be used by the Government Pleader's office. I was part of it. We must say to the Hon'ble court that these orders are non defendable."The State's counsel quickly responded by saying that he had done the same by not arguing the matter on merits. "That is precisely what I have done. I have not argued on merits at all. I am conscious," he explained. CJ Agarwal affirmed that at times advocates need to learn to not speak in courts."You are not supposed to give reply to everything. Sometimes advocates have to keep quiet also. You should learn the art of non-speaking in the court also. That is called the art of advocacy.. Not to invite wrath from the court. You keep on speaking, we keep on dictating orders," she added. .Advocates BM Mangukiya and Bela A Prajapati appeared for the respondent.