Supreme Court refuses to condone 11-year delay by Karnataka in filing appeal, says public interest no excuse

The Karnataka High Court erred in condoning a delay of 3,966 days (11 years) by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) in filing an appeal, the Supreme Court recently ruled [Shivamma v. Karnakata Housing Board].

The apex court held that government departments cannot rely on “public interest” as an excuse to justify its negligence and delay, and courts allowing the same will not be advancement of public interest but rather its betrayal.

"If the State is assured that its lapses will invariably be excused under the rubric of ‘public interest,’ there would remain little incentive for its officers to act with vigilance or for its instrumentalities to streamline procedures for timely action. The consequence would not be the advancement of public interest but rather its betrayal," the Court said in its judgment of September 12.

The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was dealing with a dispute concerning a land measuring 9 acres 13 guntas.

After a 1989 compromise decree, the appellant, one Shivamma, became the absolute owner of the land, but the KHB had already taken possession of 4 acres in 1979 for a housing colony.

The appellant filed a suit in 1989 for declaration and possession was dismissed in 1997. On appeal, the first appellate court in 2006 decreed the title in favour of the appellant but granted compensation instead of possession, given that constructions had already been undertaken on the land by KHB.

Since no action was taken by the KHB in accordance with the decree drawn by the first appellate court, the appellant initiated execution proceedings in 2011.

The KHB filed a second appeal before the High Court only on February 14, 2017 along with an application to condone 3,966 days’ delay. The High Court allowed this plea on March 21, 2017 citing public interest.

This led to the present appeal by Shivamma before the apex court.

The top court noted that public interest is best served by ensuring efficiency and diligence in governmental functioning, rather than by condoning its lapses as a matter of course.

"Thus, a liberal inclination towards the State or any of its instrumentalities, in matters of condonation of delay, cannot be adopted, merely on the presumption that, if the delay is not condoned, public interest runs the risk of suffering, by a meritorious matter being thrown out. Public interest lies not in condoning governmental indifference, but in compelling efficiency, responsibility, and timely action," the bench observed.

Thus, it rejected the reasoning adopted by the High Court and also warned against systemic laxity.

“To permit condonation of delay to become a matter of course for the Government would have the deleterious effect of institutionalising inefficiency. It would, in substance, incentivise indolence and foster a culture where accountability for delay is eroded," the judgment said.

The top court further opined that public interest does not lie in condoning governmental negligence but in compelling efficiency, responsibility and timely decision-making

"This Court has time and again emphasised that liberal condonation of delay on behalf of the State, merely on the ground that refusal might cause the dismissal of a potentially meritorious matter, is a misplaced proposition. Public interest is not synonymous with the cause of the Government; it is, instead, synonymous with the enforcement of rule of law, certainty in legal rights, and an administrative machinery that functions with diligence and accountability," said the top court.

The Court also made it clear that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.

"The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few,” the judgment said.

Thus, there is no room for State lethargy and leisure under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court held.

Hence, it set aside the High Court’s order, restored the finality of the first appellate court’s decree, directed the executing court to complete proceedings within two months and also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Housing Board payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

[Read Judgment]