Jhon Vaney

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No 19548 of 2021)
THE STATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JEEVARATHNA & ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP(C) No 19591 of 2021)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgment(s).
The submission of the learned Counsel for the
appellants is that the High Court has found
justification in reasons for condoning the delay
except a period of 30 days in SLP(C) No.
19548/2021 and 1322 days in SLP(C) No. 19591/2021.
In respect of the first matter, our view is that,
Signature Not Verified

that is the period which could have been condoned
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2022.02.09
18:08:14 IST considering that the Constitutional validity of
Reason:
the very enactment applied retrospectively is
pending consideration before the Division Bench of

2
the High Court of Karnataka. Insofar as the
second matter is concerned, learned Counsel
submits that delays have been condoned of even
longer period of time, but that in our view is no
justification by itself. We have repeatedly
frowned upon the belief of Government authorities
to walk into Court any time they want without
satisfying the parameters laid down in the case
“Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.
v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.” (2012) 3 SCC
563.
It is this reasoning and our orders passed in
that behalf, which has weighed with the Bench
while passing the impugned orders in the second
matter. Since it is a Constitutional challenge, we
are of the view that the delay may be condoned in
the given facts of the case but subject to
appropriate costs. We consider it appropriate to
impose cost of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand) on the appellant(s) in SLP(C) No.
19591/2021 to be deposited with the Supreme Court
Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee
within a period of four weeks.
Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
in SLP(C) No. 19591/2021 states that the benefit
has already been released to them.

3
We may also note that the matters pending before
the Division Bench, interim directions have been
passed for the payment to be continued to be made
as was being made and no recovery proceedings to
take place. The benefit of the orders passed in
other matters would equally apply to the
respondents before us.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and writ
petitions restored to their original number before
the High Court to be tagged with the batch of
petitions. Parties to bear their own cost, but
subject to deposit of cost in Supreme Court
Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee
within the time stipulated.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
....................J
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
...................J
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 04, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.26 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19548/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-08-2021

in WA No. 3907/2019 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bengaluru)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS
JEEVARATHNA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 19591/2021 (IV-A)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R..)
Date : 04-02-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Vinay Mathew, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (POONAM VAID)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file.)

Jhon Vaney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jhon Vaney

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jhon Vaney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2022

THE STATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)

JEEVARATHNA & ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2022

We have heard learned counsel for the

parties and perused the impugned judgment(s).

The submission of the learned Counsel for the

appellants is that the High Court has found

justification in reasons for condoning the delay

except a period of 30 days in SLP(C) No.

19548/2021 and 1322 days in SLP(C) No. 19591/2021.

In respect of the first matter, our view is that,

Signature Not Verified

the very enactment applied retrospectively is

pending consideration before the Division Bench of

the High Court of Karnataka. Insofar as the

second matter is concerned, learned Counsel

submits that delays have been condoned of even

longer period of time, but that in our view is no

justification by itself. We have repeatedly

frowned upon the belief of Government authorities

to walk into Court any time they want without

satisfying the parameters laid down in the case

“Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.

v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.” (2012) 3 SCC

It is this reasoning and our orders passed in

that behalf, which has weighed with the Bench

while passing the impugned orders in the second

matter. Since it is a Constitutional challenge, we

are of the view that the delay may be condoned in

the given facts of the case but subject to

appropriate costs. We consider it appropriate to

impose cost of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

Thousand) on the appellant(s) in SLP(C) No.

19591/2021 to be deposited with the Supreme Court

Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee

within a period of four weeks.

Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3

in SLP(C) No. 19591/2021 states that the benefit

has already been released to them.

We may also note that the matters pending before

the Division Bench, interim directions have been

passed for the payment to be continued to be made

as was being made and no recovery proceedings to

take place. The benefit of the orders passed in

other matters would equally apply to the

respondents before us.

The appeals are accordingly allowed and writ

petitions restored to their original number before

the High Court to be tagged with the batch of

petitions. Parties to bear their own cost, but

subject to deposit of cost in Supreme Court

Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee

within the time stipulated.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

ITEM NO.26 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19548/2021