<p>The Supreme Court has decided to impose a cost on government officers for being responsible for the delayed filing of a petition. The court said that it cannot be a place for the governments to walk in when they choose to ignore the period of limitation prescribed.</p>.<p>The top court deprecated the practice of filing appeals beyond the period of limitation by the government authorities, saying its repeated advice had failed to have the desired impact and ironically no action was taken in any of the cases against the officers.</p>.<p>"We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the government or state authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari said.</p>.<p>The court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Madhya Pradesh government for filing a plea after 663 days of delay. It said contempt proceedings would be initiated against the chief secretary if the order was not complied with. The court noted the "preposterous" explanation given by the authorities that if there is some merit in the case, the period of limitation has to be given a go-by.</p>.<p>In its judgement, the court highlighted the laxity and lethargy on the part of the government authorities in filing the cases on time.</p>.<p>"We have raised the issue that if the government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals or petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the statute subsists, the appeals or petitions have to be filed as per the statutes prescribed," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said that there is a category of cases where the officers are keen to obtain a certificate of dismissal to save their skins.</p>.<p>In such cases, "the object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed," it said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has decided to impose a cost on government officers for being responsible for the delayed filing of a petition. The court said that it cannot be a place for the governments to walk in when they choose to ignore the period of limitation prescribed.</p>.<p>The top court deprecated the practice of filing appeals beyond the period of limitation by the government authorities, saying its repeated advice had failed to have the desired impact and ironically no action was taken in any of the cases against the officers.</p>.<p>"We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the government or state authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari said.</p>.<p>The court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Madhya Pradesh government for filing a plea after 663 days of delay. It said contempt proceedings would be initiated against the chief secretary if the order was not complied with. The court noted the "preposterous" explanation given by the authorities that if there is some merit in the case, the period of limitation has to be given a go-by.</p>.<p>In its judgement, the court highlighted the laxity and lethargy on the part of the government authorities in filing the cases on time.</p>.<p>"We have raised the issue that if the government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals or petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the statute subsists, the appeals or petitions have to be filed as per the statutes prescribed," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said that there is a category of cases where the officers are keen to obtain a certificate of dismissal to save their skins.</p>.<p>In such cases, "the object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed," it said.</p>
