Delays Attributable to Administrative Inefficiencies Not Sufficient for Condonation: APTEL

In a recent decision, New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) filed an Appeal wherein a condonation of delay application was filed by the Appellants for delay in filing the Appeal. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) rejected the New Delhi Municipal Council’s (NDMC) appeal and condonation of delay application, while observing that delays stemming from internal departmental inefficiencies or administrative procedures cannot be a ground for condonation of delay without compelling reasons.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Appeal was filed by NDMC against the order wherein the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (“DERC”) held that the NDMC being a deemed distribution Licensee, is, after coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 would be liable to pay annual/license fee with effect from F.Y. 2003-04 onwards along with accrued interest on account of delayed payment up to the date of 31.12.2022. However, this appeal was filed after 371 days from the DERC’s order. The Appellant filed a “Condonation of Delay” application, justifying the delay based on range of administrative hurdles and operational delays, from internal decision-making processes to staffing complications related to the G20 Summit

DERC, represented by Mr. Saurav Agrawal, opposed the application, countering NDMC’s justifications as insufficient to meet the legal standard for condoning such a significant delay.

FINDINGS OF THE APTEL IN JUDGMENT 

The Tribunal, adhering strictly to procedural law, underscored that every appeal must be filed within the period of limitation, which can be extended only if the appellant can demonstrate “sufficient cause” for any delay. The Tribunal examined the reasons for NDMC’s delay, which spanned over a year, and found them rooted primarily in internal administrative processes and departmental inefficiencies. 

NDMC claimed that as a government body, decisions on filing an appeal required multi-level administrative clearances, which contributed to the delay. Additionally, NDMC cited diversion of resources during the G20 Summit as a factor for the prolonged delay in filing. The APTEL emphasized that such generalized justifications are inadequate, especially when considerable delay is involved, and government entities should have established, efficient processes for managing legal timelines. 

Counsel for the DERC submitted that the reasons offered by NDMC failed to meet the threshold of “sufficient cause.” Counsel for DERC, underscored, that NDMC’s attempt to attribute the delay to bureaucratic processes lacked documentary evidence or material particulars, as each event cited by the appellant primarily referenced internal processes, and rebutted NDMC’s claims point-by-point. He meticulously outlined gaps in NDMC’s timeline and emphasized the following:

1. Absence of Material Support: It was submitted that NDMC's submissions were primarily based on references to administrative processes but lacked concrete evidence or documentation. Each interval cited by NDMC, appeared to be routine procedural delays rather than extraordinary or unavoidable setbacks.

2. G20 Summit: NDMC attributed some delay to the diversion of officials during the G20 Summit. However, Counsel for DERC, highlighted that the deputation for the G20 duties occurred months after the statutory deadline for filing the appeal had already expired. 

3. The reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgments - Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2021) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal (2020), which assert that governmental bodies cannot rely on internal inefficiencies as grounds for delay and that the law of limitation serves the principle that only vigilant parties should benefit from judicial remedies. 

Tribunal’s Interpretation of “Sufficient Cause” in Delay Condonation

The Tribunal scrutinized the appellant’s timeline of events, noting specific periods where NDMC’s inactivity remained unexplained, despite nearly nine months of delay post-G-20 Summit activities. The Tribunal’s ruling clarified that merely citing internal processes does not constitute “sufficient cause,” a term defined legally as a reason compelling enough to justify the appellant’s inability to file within the prescribed period. Referring to Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013), the Tribunal reiterated that sufficient cause implies an adequate and compelling reason directly preventing the filing, which must be backed by supporting documents and evidence of efforts taken to overcome the delay.

The Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal, pointed out that despite NDMC’s references to an internal process, they did not produce any specific documentation to substantiate the timeline of events. Highlighting the impact of inordinate delay on the interests of justice and the statutory objectives of swift adjudication, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the NDMC’s failure to meet the standard for delay condonation.

The Tribunal held that delays caused by administrative red-tape are insufficient to justify such an extensive delay. APTEL emphasized the doctrine Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights). This principle was particularly relevant, as NDMC’s prolonged delay without cogent explanations contravened this foundational tenet. The Tribunal highlighted that statutory timelines are critical for maintaining procedural integrity, particularly in appellate cases, where delays impact both the judicial process and the opposing party’s vested rights.

The decision highlighted that while government entities are occasionally afforded a certain leeway due to operational complexities, this cannot be an assumed privilege, particularly when such inefficiencies seem systemic rather than exceptional. The Tribunal further stressed that leniency in condonation requires clear evidence of vigilance, not merely bureaucratic processes. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the application lacked merit as the NDMC’s repeated reliance on procedural delays was without substantive support and even the Summit duties did not play a role in the initial delay and could not serve as a sufficient explanation for the full period.

The Tribunal, concurring with the precedents, concluded that government inefficiencies and procedural backlogs are insufficient reasons for condoning delays, as government agencies are expected to adhere to statutory timelines with vigilance. In dismissing the appeal, APTEL reinforced the view that legal deadlines are binding on all litigants, including government bodies, and that internal delays must be managed effectively rather than used as grounds for condonation and the bureaucratic or procedural reasons cannot be a way to bypass legal deadlines.

APPEARANCES:

• Appellant (NDMC): Ms. Kanika Agnihotri and Mr. Saad Mustafa Shervani, Advocates.

• Respondent (DERC): Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Saloni Paliwal, Advocates.