The impugned judgment, passed on January 13, 2016, involved objections raised by a property owner regarding the rateable value of their property. The MCGM’s Appeal Committee initially met on June 3, 2016, and decided not to pursue an appeal against the judgment. However, in a surprising turn of events, the MCGM reversed its stance in March 2021 and sought to file an appeal, over five years later. This request for appeal was eventually formalized in 2023, resulting in a delay of more than seven years and 101 days from the original decision.

The court found the delay in pursuing the appeal to be highly excessive and unacceptable, especially given that the Appeal Committee had taken a conscious decision in 2016 not to appeal. Not only was there a significant delay in reversing this decision, but the applications for condonation of delay were filed two years after this change of opinion. Even after the delay had become evident, the MCGM failed to present a reasonable justification for this inordinate passage of time.

The court noted that the grounds cited by MCGM in its application were insufficient to justify the delay, and the request for further time to review files and potentially file additional affidavits was denied. The court observed that no substantial purpose would be served by prolonging the matter further, as the facts surrounding the rateable value had changed fundamentally in the intervening years.

The court heavily relied on precedents from the Supreme Court to emphasize the strict approach taken toward delays, especially when government entities are involved. In Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), the Supreme Court had remarked that reliance on bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays in filing appeals is unacceptable. The judgment stressed that, in the age of modern technology, government bodies must manage their affairs more efficiently and be held to the same standards as private parties.

Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020), the Supreme Court reiterated that government inefficiencies, no matter how entrenched, do not justify delay in filing appeals. While some leeway may be given to government departments due to their procedural complexities, the law of limitation remains equally applicable to them. The Court emphasized that the statute does not provide a separate period of limitation for the government.

The court was critical of MCGM's internal decision-making framework, which led to the excessive delay. Despite an initial decision not to appeal in 2016, the Appeal Committee did not convene until five years later to reverse that decision. Additionally, even after this change of opinion in 2021, the appeals were filed only in 2023, marking a delay of over two years.

The court highlighted that MCGM’s approach to decision-making was inconsistent with the statutory framework of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. According to Section 218D(2) of the Act, appeals must be filed within one month of the impugned decision. The Appeal Committee’s meetings, as well as the prolonged delay, effectively exceeded the statutory limits for filing an appeal.

The court also highlighted that by the time the appeals were filed, the core issue of the rateable value of the property had undergone significant changes, making the appeals futile. The delay had caused the facts and context surrounding the litigation to become outdated. Even the MCGM’s own submissions indicated that the rateable value had been significantly altered since the time of the original decision, leading the court to conclude that pursuing the appeals would serve no useful purpose.

In light of the above factors, the court concluded that the MCGM had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the applications for condonation of delay were rejected. Consequently, the First Appeals were dismissed, and the MCGM was reminded of the need to streamline its decision-making processes and comply with statutory deadlines in the future.

While the court's dismissal of the appeals may bring an end to this particular matter, the ruling also serves as a reminder to government bodies and agencies of their duty to act with diligence and efficiency, especially in matters that impact public resources and legal rights. The decision reinforces the legal principle that the law of limitation applies equally to all parties, irrespective of their institutional status. The MCGM now faces the challenge of reviewing its internal processes and ensuring that future appeals are filed within the prescribed statutory timelines, thus avoiding any further legal complications.