2019 (5) TMI 1752 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of commissioner to consider application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act - Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a Court? - HELD THAT - When an appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner under Section 69 to the Court which is defined under Section 6(7), there is no question of treating the Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959 - thus, Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of Act, 1959. Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local Laws? - Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? - HELD THAT - The applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is with regard to different limitations prescribed for any suit, appeal or application when to be filed in a Court - Section 29(2) cannot be pressed in service with regard to filing of suits, appeals and applications before the statutory authorities and tribunals provided in a special or local law. The Commissioner while hearing of the appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959 is not entitled to condone the delay in filing appeal, since, provision of Section 5 shall not be attracted by strength of Section 29(2) of the Act. Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicate that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities? - HELD THAT - A special or local law can very well provide for applicability of any provision of Limitation Act or exclude applicability of any provision of Limitation Act. The provisions of Limitation Act including Section 5 can very well be applied in deciding an appeal by statutory authority which is not a Court by the statutory scheme of special or local law - We, thus, need to notice the provisions of Act, 1959 as to whether the scheme under Act, 1959 shows that enactment intended to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The mere fact that a statutory authority is empowered to follow the procedure as nearly may be in accordance with procedure under C.P.C. to the trial of suits or hearing of appeals, the statutory authority shall not become a Court. There is nothing under Section 110 which indicates that Limitation Act is also made applicable in hearing of the appeal - Section 115 deals with limitation. It only provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed under Act, 1959 for any proceeding, suit, appeal or application for revision against any order or decree passed under this Act, the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of such order or decree shall be excluded. The suo motu power has been given to the Commissioner to correct the orders of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner even if no appeal has been filed within 60 days. Giving of suo motu power to the Commissioner is with object to ensure that an order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may be corrected when appeal is not filed within time under Section 69(1). The scheme of Section 69 especially sub-section (2) also re-enforces our conclusion that Legislature never contemplated applicability of Section 5 in Section 69(1) for condoning the delay in filing an appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Application and Appeal Rules provide for procedures and details of filing application, affidavits, memorandum of appeal, application for revision, etc. The said Rules, in no manner, support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Similarly, Holding of Inquiries Rules provide for procedure of holding of inquiries, issue of notice, etc. The above Rules also do not throw any light on the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a Court?
2. Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal, or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local Laws?
3. Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
4. Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicates that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities?

Detailed Analysis:

Question 1: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a Court?
The Court examined the definitions of "Commissioner" and "Court" under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Commissioner is defined under Section 6(6) and the Court under Section 6(7). The Court concluded that the Commissioner is an authority appointed by the Government and is not a Court within the meaning of the Act, 1959. The Court referred to the conventional definition of a Court and noted that the Commissioner, while performing quasi-judicial functions, does not constitute a Court. The Court also distinguished the case from previous judgments where authorities with quasi-judicial functions were considered Courts for specific purposes.

Question 2: Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal, or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local Laws?
The Court analyzed Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies to suits, appeals, and applications filed in a Court as per special or local laws. The Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, are directed only when suits, appeals, or applications are to be filed in a Court, and not before statutory authorities or quasi-judicial bodies unless expressly provided by the special or local law.

Question 3: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The Court concluded that the Commissioner is not entitled to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959, by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, and applications filed in a Court and not to statutory authorities like the Commissioner under the Act, 1959.

Question 4: Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicates that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities?
The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Act, 1959, particularly Sections 69 and 115. It noted that Section 115 provides for the exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order or decree but does not indicate the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court also referred to the suo motu power of the Commissioner under Section 69(2), which allows the Commissioner to correct orders even if no appeal is filed within the prescribed period. The Court concluded that the scheme of the Act, 1959, does not indicate the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The order of the Commissioner dated 31.07.2013 was also set aside, and the appeal filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed. The Court observed that this dismissal does not preclude the Commissioner from exercising his suo motu power under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1959.