2010 (1) TMI 67 - HC - Customs

Delay in filing of an appeal - Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution - The petitioners filed appeals to the first respondent, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent. While filing the applications seeking to condone the delay of 80 to 86 days in preferring the appeals, an affidavit was filed by the authorised representative one Mr.Radhakrishna Sharma in support of the petitions filed for condoning the delay stating that the papers have been entrusted to him for filing the appeals and the appeals could not been filed in time, in view of the serious illness caused to his mother and thereafter to himself. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the writ petitioners stating that the reasons assigned by the petitioners were not satisfactory and in any case the subsequent delay has not been explained properly. Challenging the common order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petitions have been filed. held that - admittedly there is some laxity on the part of the petitioners in filing the appeals in time. The petitioners were not diligent enough to file the appeals within the stipulated time even though the delay caused is not willful or deliberate. Hence taking into consideration of the above said factual position, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would suffice that all the petitioners in each of the writ petitions will have to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the said Legal Aid Authority. appeals restored before CESTAT

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Alternative remedy, Judicial interpretation of medical certificates, Laxity in filing appeals, Payment to Legal Aid Authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed appeals challenging an order passed by the 2nd respondent but faced dismissal due to a delay of 80 to 86 days. The Tribunal found the reasons provided unsatisfactory. The petitioners contended that the delay was not willful, and proper reasons were given for condonation. They argued that the Tribunal's strict view was unwarranted, especially considering the circumstances leading to the delay.

2. The petitioners relied on previous judgments to support their case, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present their appeal before the Tribunal. They argued that the issue at hand had already been addressed by higher courts, indicating a favorable outcome if given the chance to be heard.

3. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies. They cited a judgment emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures without shortcutting them.

4. The Court noted that the writ petitions were filed promptly after the impugned orders and that the delay was focused on condonation rather than adjudication on merits. The Court opined that in cases like this, where the only issue was the delay in filing the appeal, the petitioners should not be compelled to pursue further appeals, causing more delays.

5. The Court stressed the importance of considering the reasons for delay provided by the petitioners and the legal issues raised in the appeals. It highlighted that technicalities should not obstruct a party from seeking justice and that substantial justice should prevail over procedural hurdles.

6. Relying on previous judgments, the Court concluded that the delay in filing the appeals could be condoned, allowing the petitioners to present their case on merits. However, acknowledging the laxity on the part of the petitioners, they were directed to pay a sum to the Legal Aid Authority within a specified period to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed by the Court.

7. The Court directed the first respondent to proceed with the appeals on merits within a specified timeframe, while also ensuring the continuation of bank guarantees provided by the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.