Delay By State Agencies Due To Administrative Lethargy Should Not Be Condoned : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today(September 12) warned High Courts not to condone inordinate delays by State agencies on grounds of administrative lethargy and laxity.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the observation, while setting aside the order of the Karnataka High Court which condoned a delay of 11 years by the Karnaktaka Housing Board in filing a second appeal against a decree.

The Court observed :

"Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay. And we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays should not be condoned on frivolous, superficial grounds until a proper case of sufficient case is made out wherein the State machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fide and remained vigilant all through out. Procedure is a handmaiden to justice, as famously said but courts, and more particularly the Constitutional Courts ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffers the bar of limitation from pursuing litigation due to their own lackadaisical attitude.

The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy.

The Constitutional Court ought to be cognisant of the apathy and pains of a private litigant. Litigants can't be placed in a situation of perpetual litigation wherein the fruits of that decree all favourable orders frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law."

The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 in addition to the 25,000 imposed by the High Court to be paid to the Karnataka State Service Legal Authority.

The matter pertained to the High Court condoning the delay in a second appeal filed by the Karnataka Housing Board. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court has erroneously condoned a massive delay of 3966 days on account of certain lapses at the administrative levels.

The Court said that it is also concerned about the plight of an ordinary litigant, who is forced to contest a legal battle against the State despite the inordinate delay.

"Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice."

Case Details: SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD|SLP(C) No. 10704/2019 Diary No. 19303 / 2017

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Click here to read the judgment