State Of A.P v. Food Corporation Of India .

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent in these petitions is the Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad. The dispute pertains to Assessment Years 1972–73 and 1973–74 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The impugned High Court judgments are dated 24-6-1996 and 25-6-1996.

The present special leave petitions (SLPs) were filed on 26-8-2004 and 1-9-2004. Each was accompanied by applications seeking condonation of substantial delays—2634 days and 2900 days, respectively. The only explanation provided by the petitioner State of Andhra Pradesh was that the matter was examined at higher departmental levels, a decision to file SLPs was taken, and papers were sent to the Special Officer in the Office of the Advocate-on-Record on 29-5-2004 and received on 10-6-2004.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the extraordinary delays of 2634 days and 2900 days in filing the special leave petitions should be condoned based on the explanation offered by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Arguments of the Parties

State of Andhra Pradesh (Petitioner)

• Explained the delay by stating that the Department examined the matter at higher levels, decided to file SLPs, and forwarded papers to the Advocate-on-Record’s office on 29-5-2004, which were received on 10-6-2004.

Food Corporation of India (Respondent)

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the State Government filed the petitions, noting that it resulted in wasting judicial time and public money. The Court emphasized that the impugned orders were challenged after more than eight years and that the petitions provided almost no explanation for this prolonged delay beyond the brief administrative narrative concerning actions in May–June 2004.

Assessing the timeline, the Court observed that the High Court’s orders were passed in June 1996, whereas the SLPs were filed only in late August and early September 2004. The explanation offered addressed only the final weeks immediately preceding the filing and did not account for the substantial intervening years. On that basis, the Court found the explanation inadequate and declined to condone the delay.

Given the seriousness of the lapse, the Court directed that an enquiry be conducted by the State Government to identify the person responsible for the delay, recover from such person the costs incurred in filing the petitions, and submit a report to the Court within four weeks. The Court further ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State and to the Head of the Department of Sales Tax, with the Chief Secretary required to file an affidavit along with the report.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the special leave petitions are also dismissed. The Court directs an enquiry to identify the person responsible, recovery of the costs involved in filing the petitions from such person, submission of a report within four weeks, and filing of an affidavit by the Chief Secretary along with the report. A copy of the order is to be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Head of the Department of Sales Tax.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the SLPs do not proceed further due to the refusal to condone the inordinate delay. The State Government must conduct an enquiry, recover costs from the responsible individual, and report back within four weeks. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish any new precedent.