2019 (3) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 457 days in filing appeal - appeal rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period as prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-O of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - forfeited property. Whether the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal from an order of a Competent Authority, which is filed after expiry of sixty days from the receipt of the order? Whether this Court can condone the delay beyond the said period in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Held that - The plain reading of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 68-O of the NDPS Act indicates that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which is filed beyond a period of sixty days from the date on which the order passed by the Competent Authority is served on the appellant. An appeal under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-O of the NDPS Act can be filed only within a period of 45 days from the date on which the order is served. However, the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal even beyond the said period of 45 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the said appeal. However, this power is not available to entertain an appeal beyond a period of 60 days. The contention that the petitioner has any inherent right to file an appeal against the order of the Competent Authority, is flawed. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of statute and there is no inherent right of appeal. In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors 1954 (5) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court had held that It is well known that an appeal is a creature of statute and there can be no inherent right of appeal from any judgment or determination unless an appeal is expressly provided for by the law itself. Plainly, if the right of appeal is a creature of statute, it would be open for the legislature to curtail the said right as well. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the legislature providing a limited right of appeal. The Parliament has provided a right of appeal against an order of the Competent Authority, albeit, subject to the condition that the same be preferred within the specified period. It has expressly curtailed the power of the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal which is filed beyond the specified period. Thus, a person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority has no right to an appeal if the same is not preferred within the prescribed period. Clearly, if the petitioner has no statutory right to file an appeal, the question of issuing directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide the same, contrary to the statue, would not arise - Since, the right to appeal is a statutory right, this court is not persuaded to accept that relief can be granted to the petitioner who has lost such a right on account of delay. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act.
2. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period stipulated in Section 68-O of the NDPS Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 14.11.2018 by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, which rejected the petitioner’s appeal due to it being filed 457 days late. The Tribunal cited Section 68-O of the NDPS Act, which prescribes a 45-day period for filing an appeal, extendable to a maximum of 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal held it had no power to condone delays beyond 60 days. The Court affirmed this interpretation, stating that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed beyond 60 days from the service of the order. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a statutory right and not an inherent right, referencing multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which established that statutory limits on appeal periods are binding and cannot be extended by the Tribunal.

2. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period stipulated in Section 68-O of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner argued that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, could condone the delay. The Court rejected this argument, reiterating that the right to appeal is a statutory right and can be limited by the legislature. The Court cited Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, where the Supreme Court held that statutory time limits for appeals are binding and cannot be extended by the courts, even under constitutional provisions like Article 142. The Court also referenced Amikna Bi Kaskar (Deceased) v. Union of India & Ors., where it was held that the Tribunal cannot entertain appeals beyond the statutory limit of 60 days. The Court concluded that it could not grant relief to the petitioner, who lost the right to appeal due to the delay.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the statutory limitation on the period for filing appeals under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act and affirming that neither the Appellate Tribunal nor the High Court has the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the stipulated period. The Court emphasized the principle that statutory rights, including the right to appeal, are subject to the conditions imposed by the legislature, and courts cannot override these limitations.