9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant sought condonation of a 39-day delay in filing the appeal against the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) order dated 19.6.2002. The appeal was filed on 26.9.2002, exceeding the 60-day limitation period stipulated under Section 16(3) of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998. Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause" under Section 16(3) of the Act: Section 16(3) of the Act allows the High Court to entertain an appeal beyond the 60-day period if "sufficient cause" is shown. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the advice received from their advocate in Delhi on 20.9.2002, which led to the filing of the appeal on 26.9.2002 after consulting their advocate in Cuttack. The respondent countered that the delay was not justified by "sufficient cause" as required by law, arguing that the appellant's knowledge of the respondent's appeal in the Delhi High Court did not constitute a valid reason for the delay. Legal Precedents and Court's Reasoning: The court referred to various precedents to interpret "sufficient cause." The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Ors. and New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Santi Mishra emphasized that "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed and that the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be rigidly defined. In Briz Inder Singh v. Kanshiram and Sakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntala Kumari, the court highlighted that reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal is crucial and that bona fide mistakes by counsel can be considered sufficient cause. Similarly, in Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirmata Devi, the Supreme Court condoned delays caused by counsel's negligence if the mistake was bona fide. The court also noted that in cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act aims to enable courts to deliver substantial justice by deciding matters on merits and that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted flexibly to avoid miscarriage of justice. Court's Conclusion: The court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a communication gap between the appellant and their advocate in Delhi. The appellant acted promptly upon receiving advice to file the appeal. The court held that this constituted "sufficient cause" under Section 16(3) of the Act and that the delay should be condoned to ensure substantial justice. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" is context-specific and should be pragmatically interpreted. It underscored that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, and the judiciary's role is to rectify injustices rather than uphold them on technical grounds. Order: The court condoned the 39-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to be heard on merits, and disposed of the Misc. Case without costs.
|
