2023 (8) TMI 1633 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing a review application - Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in view of Section 21 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 and Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 - HELD THAT - Since the present issue is relating to condonation of delay in filing the review before the Tribunal this Court finds that section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 relates to the power of a Central Administrative Tribunal to review its own decision. Therefore as far as the power of the Administrative Tribunal to review its own decision is concerned sufficient power has been vested as per the statute itself. Apparently the extent of power to be exercised by the Tribunal can be well understood from the provision that the said power of review is to be found under the larger umbrella of section 22 (3) of the Act 1985. The power of review vested with an Administrative Tribunal is equated to a Civil Court and thus while considering and disposing of any review application the Administrative Tribunal is to follow the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus by necessary implications the provisions of review as found under the Civil procedure Code i.e Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be incorporated along with the power of review of an Administrative Tribunal - the power of the Tribunal to review its judgment has been well explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa 1999 (11) TMI 861 - SUPREME COURT and Gopalbandhu Biswal Vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty 1998 (4) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court had held review power of a Tribunal to be similar as has been granted to a Civil Court under Section 114 or under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. In any case the power of review is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the same can be exercised on the application of a person on restricted grounds of discovery of new and important matter; or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Apparently the Apex Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Vs. Madan Lal Dan Sons. Bareilly 1976 (9) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT has held that for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any application by any special or local law the provisions contained in Section 12(2) inter alia shall apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law and noted that there was nothing in the U.P. Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to a review Application field before the Administrative Tribunal as the provisions of limitation are not specifically barred by the Administrative Tribunal Act or the Rules framed therein. However the Tribunal should exercise great caution while applying the said provision of the limitation Act so as to balance between a right of a party to review the order on limited legally permissible grounds available to him and public policy which provides for finality of a lis between the parties - Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India others vs. Chitra Lekha Chakraborty 2008 (10) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Apex Court held that since there is a specific provision in Rule 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Rules for filing of Review applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal Section 5 of Limitation Act was not applicable to a petition under Rule 17. Conclusion - This Court holds that an application for condonation of delay in Review Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 is maintainable and accordingly it is held that the Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not preferring an application within the time has been supplemented. The impugned order is quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal question considered was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing a review application against its judgment by exercising power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in view of Section 21 & 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework involves Article 323A of the Constitution, which allows for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals, and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which governs the functioning of these tribunals. Section 21 of the Act deals with the limitation for filing original applications, while Section 22 provides the Tribunal with powers similar to a civil court, including the power to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, prescribes a 30-day period for filing review applications.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court analyzed whether the Tribunal can condone delays in filing review applications under the Limitation Act, 1963. It considered the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Court noted that neither Section 22 of the Act nor Rule 17 expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, suggesting that the Tribunal could have the power to condone delays.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court referred to various judgments from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, analyzing the interpretation of Rule 17 and the applicability of the Limitation Act. It noted that some High Courts, like the Full Benches of the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts, have held that the Tribunal can condone delays, while others, like the Andhra Pradesh and Gauhati High Courts, have held the opposite.

Application of law to facts:

The petitioner filed a review application beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 17. The Tribunal dismissed it, stating it lacked the power to condone the delay. The Court examined whether this dismissal was justified under the legal framework and precedents.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal has the power to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by precedents from other High Courts. The respondents contended that Rule 17 prohibits entertaining review applications filed beyond 30 days. The Court weighed these arguments against the backdrop of applicable laws and precedents.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the Tribunal does have the power to condone delays in filing review applications, provided the applicant shows sufficient cause. It found that neither the Act nor the Rules expressly exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, allowing for the condonation of delay under Section 5.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that an application for condonation of delay in a review application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal is maintainable. It stated that the Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown.

Significant quotes from the judgment include:

"The logical sequitur on the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that neither Section 22 of the Act nor Rule 17 of the Rules expressly excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act."

The Court quashed the Tribunal's order dismissing the review application and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide on the merits of the condonation application.

The Court emphasized that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the parties to present their arguments before the Tribunal.