Unexpected situations don’t justify delay in filing pleas, says Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that simply blaming “unforeseen circumstances” without evidence is not enough to justify a delay in filing a plea against an earlier court order. Justice Sumeet Goel made the observation while rejecting Chandigarh’s request to condone a 173-day delay in challenging the acquittal of a juvenile.
“Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate these claims does not meet the legal threshold for condonation,” Justice Goel asserted. Virtually rapping the UT for its failure to adopt a proactive approach, the court added that the applicant state had neither shown interest in the case, nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay.
The application was submitted by the UT in connection with an acquittal judgment issued by the Juvenile Justice Board on March 21, 2018. But UT in its application provided only a cursory explanation, citing that the legal remembrancer-cum-Director of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, instructed the public prosecutor to file the revision petition against the acquittal judgment, even though the prescribed period for filing such a plea had already lapsed.
The court found the explanation from Chandigarh wholly lacking in credibility or substantive detail. Justice Goel observed, “A perusal of the averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant state to condone the delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.”
Making it clear that the authorities were fully aware of the 90-day limitation for filing a revision petition, Justice Goel observed the delay was both excessive and unexplained. “The applicant state has failed to provide any concrete explanation or document to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit,” the court held and concluded that the delay condonation plea was without merit.
