State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another v. Chaitram Maywade ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This order concerns IA No. 67822 of 2020, an application for condonation of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The SLP was filed with a delay of 588 days. The record notes that on 5-1-2019 the Government Advocate was approached regarding the impugned judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 (reported as 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632). The Law Department granted permission to file the SLP on 26-5-2020, indicating that the Department took approximately 17 months to decide whether to file the SLP. The Court had previously addressed similarly delayed filings by the same State in State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 by an order dated 15-10-2020.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State of Madhya Pradesh demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant condonation of a 588-day delay in filing its SLP.

Whether bureaucratic or departmental delays can justify condonation in light of the Court’s prior order in State of M.P. v. Bherulal and the principle in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 (order dated 15-10-2020)	The Court had already issued a detailed order addressing inordinately delayed filings by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the non-acceptability of such delays.	The Court declined to repeat its detailed reasoning and relied on that prior order to guide its approach in rejecting the request for condonation.
Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563	Excuses rooted in bureaucratic or institutional delay are not acceptable grounds for condonation; government litigants are not entitled to special indulgence in limitation matters.	Used to hold that the State’s explanations for delay are no longer admissible, reinforcing the refusal to condone the delay.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 (order dated 15-10-2020)

The Court had already issued a detailed order addressing inordinately delayed filings by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the non-acceptability of such delays.

The Court declined to repeat its detailed reasoning and relied on that prior order to guide its approach in rejecting the request for condonation.

Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563

Excuses rooted in bureaucratic or institutional delay are not acceptable grounds for condonation; government litigants are not entitled to special indulgence in limitation matters.

Used to hold that the State’s explanations for delay are no longer admissible, reinforcing the refusal to condone the delay.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that the State of Madhya Pradesh has repeatedly filed inordinately delayed appeals, exhibiting incorrigible conduct. It noted the present delay of 588 days and recorded the internal timeline: after the impugned judgment dated 13-11-2018, the Government Advocate was approached on 5-1-2019, yet the Law Department took until 26-5-2020 to permit filing of the SLP, amounting to roughly 17 months merely to decide whether to file. The Court viewed this as a stark indication of administrative inefficiency within the Legal Department.

Relying on its prior detailed order in State of M.P. v. Bherulal, the Court found no reason to revisit or restate that reasoning. It reiterated that excuses of departmental delay are not acceptable in light of Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., where the Supreme Court has clarified that bureaucratic processes cannot justify condonation of substantial delay.

The Court also characterized such filings as “certificate cases”—cases pursued primarily to obtain a dismissal from the Supreme Court to bring a formal end to the matter and shield defaulting officers—while no action is taken against officers responsible for delays. Given the magnitude of delay, the casual drafting of the application, and the judicial time wasted, the Court imposed monetary costs on the State, directed recovery of those costs from the responsible officer(s), and required proof of such recovery to be filed. It further cautioned that costs will escalate in similar future matters. Recognizing systemic issues, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to consider revamping the Legal Department to ensure timely filing.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the SLP was DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED. Costs of Rs 35,000 were imposed on the petitioner State, to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks. The amount is to be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay, and a certificate of recovery must be filed in the Supreme Court within the same period. The Court warned that non-compliance may lead to initiation of contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Secretary. The Deputy Advocate General was cautioned that costs will increase in similar future cases.

Implications: The immediate consequence is dismissal of the State’s SLP due to inordinate and unjustified delay, along with a cost order and accountability measures targeting responsible officers. The Court also signaled administrative reform by directing the Chief Secretary to review and revamp the Legal Department’s functioning. No new legal precedent was created; rather, the order reinforces and applies existing principles against condonation for bureaucratic delays as earlier articulated in State of M.P. v. Bherulal and Postmaster General v. Living Media.

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another v. Chaitram Maywade .

Order

IA No. 67822 of 2020—Application for condonation of delay

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh continues to do the same thing again and again and the conduct seems to be incorrigible. The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 588 days. We had an occasion to deal with such inordinately delayed filing of the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh in State of M.P. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 in terms of our order dated 15-10-2020.

2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. On 5-1-2019, it is stated that the Government Advocate was approached in respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632 and the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of incompetence would there be for the Legal Department!

3. We consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the Legal Department as it appears that the Department is unable to file appeals within any reasonable period of time much less within limitation. These kinds of excuses, as already recorded in the aforesaid order, are no more admissible in view of the judgment in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563

4. We have also expressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only “certificate cases” to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. We have also recorded the irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing.

5. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial time involved, we impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs 35,000 to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. We have put to Deputy Advocate General to caution that for any successive matters of this kind the costs will keep on going up.

6. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in the terms aforesaid.

7. We make it once again clear that if the order is not complied with within time, we may be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary. A copy of the order be also placed before the Chief Secretary for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(Record of Proceedings),SLP (C) Diary No. 13348 of 2020 , decided on October 27, 2020

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another v. Chaitram Maywade .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another v. Chaitram Maywade .

Comments