2018 (12) TMI 1814 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing written statement - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The learned Tribunal has not considered various aspects of the matter and has rejected the application for taking on record the written statement without appreciating the facts in its right perspective. That being so, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the respondent Tribunal to decide the application for taking the written statement on record afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to orders of DRAT and DRT-II regarding non-condonation of delay and rejection of written statement.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged orders of DRAT and DRT-II regarding the non-condonation of delay and rejection of the written statement under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection before DRT, which was rejected. Subsequently, the written statement was refused to be taken on record due to delay. The Court noted that the preliminary objection was not a written statement but an objection on maintainability. The detailed written statement was filed within 30 days of the rejection of the preliminary objection.

3. The Court found that the Tribunal did not consider all aspects of the matter and rejected the application without proper appreciation of the facts. Therefore, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on taking the written statement on record in accordance with the law.

4. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of DRT-II and DRAT were quashed. DRT-II was directed to reconsider the petitioner's request to take the written statement on record. No costs were awarded in this case.