[Bureaucratic delays] Govt departments cannot take advantage of earlier decisions in electronic age: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday held that the law of limitation is binding on the government and its departments, which cannot cite bureaucratic reasons as grounds for delay in the electronic age [Union of India vs. Tenzing Construction]..Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia noted in the order,"Law is already settled that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. In a matter of condonation of delay...the Government Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions at least in this age of electronic communication. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available.".The Court was hearing an appeal by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), a government-run body that provides support to the Armed Forces, against a trial court order which held that its challenge to an arbitral award was not filed within the stipulated time frame. The BRO sought condonation of delay in appealing against the said order passed by a district court.The Court observed that the doctrine, "Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights," is the basis of limitation law, which recognises the fact that a fair chance to defend might be lost after expiry of a certain time from the date of the wrong. "The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. It does not favour the cause of someone who suddenly wakes up to enforce his or her rights long after discovering that they exist," Justice Saikia held while disposing of the appeal for lack of merit. .The trial court had held that the appellant could not show "proper and cogent reasons" for not preferring the appeal within the time stipulated by law.Counsel for BRO said that it was part of the Union of India, having its headquarters outside the State of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, and that the delay took place because of official communication.Counsel for the respondent submitted that the law of limitation is applicable to government departments as it is to a private person. With the internet revolution, government departments are not entitled to privilege in seeking a condonation of delay, it was argued..Justice Saikia cited the Supreme Court judgment in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd to note that there unless government departments have a reasonable explanation for the delay, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to red tape."The trial court has correctly appreciated the legal provisions and arrived at a correct finding," the Court ruled. Advocate H Gupta and Additional Solicitor General Subhash Chandra Keyal appeared for the BRO. Senior Advocate Unni Krishnan Nair and Advocate D Wangdi appeared for the respondents. .[Read judgment]