Bengaluru: Observing that the “State is expected to be a model litigant, not a privileged procrastinator”, Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed by the state govt along with Karnataka State Law University, citing that they are barred by limitation.The state govt had filed three writ appeals and the Law University one writ appeal against the orders passed by the single bench, after an inordinate delay of 626 days, 1,099 days, 466 days and 548 days, respectively.The single bench had directed the state govt and the Law University to consider representations submitted by the petitioners, who were working on a temporary full-time basis under the Law University, for regularisation of service as done in the cases of similarly placed persons.In their writ appeals, both the state govt and the Law University explained that the delay was on the administrative side with regard to the inordinate delay in filing the writ appeals.However, after perusing the materials on record, a division bench comprising Justices M Nagaprasanna and Hema Kulkarni noted that the delay condonation applications filed along with the writ appeals disclose no exceptional circumstance, no compelling impediment and no credible explanation that could constitute sufficient cause for the extraordinary delays. What is presented as an explanation is, in substance, an assortment of administrative excuses; what is sought as judicial indulgence would, if granted, amount to judicial endorsement of bureaucratic apathy, the bench added.The division bench further pointed out that the state govt itself had enacted the Karnataka Conduct of Government Litigation Act, 2023, which came into effect from July 27, 2023, mandating strict procedures/timelines for filing appeals in time.The orders impugned in all the appeals before us were rendered after the coming into force of the aforesaid enactment. Yet, not one of the appeals demonstrates adherence to the statutory discipline contemplated therein. The time limits prescribed for movement of files, securing opinions and taking decisions appear to have been thrown to the winds. The state, which enacted the law to bring order and accountability into governmental litigation, has itself failed to demonstrate fidelity to its mandate. The irony is unmistakable: the state enacted a law to arrest red-tapism, but red-tapism appears to have arrested the operation of the law. The law may accommodate genuine administrative difficulties, but it cannot countenance administrative indifference masquerading as sufficient cause, the division bench further observed while dismissing the writ appeals on the ground that they are barred by limitation.
