2024 (4) TMI 465 - HC - Indian Laws

Time limitation - Refusal to condone the delay in challenging the Order passed by the Competent Authority and Administrator, SAFEM(FOP)A, 1976 and NDPS Act, 1985, New Delhi - HELD THAT - A perusal of the judgments in CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VERSUS CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS 2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT and M/S. PATEL BROTHERS VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 2017 (1) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT show that if a special Act provides for a special period of limitation then Sections 4 to 28 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable and, therefore, there is no power in the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the last date for filing the appeal had expired on 04.08.2023 and the appeal was filed on 20.09.2023 and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal Could not have condoned the delay between 04.08.2023 and 20.09.2023. It is equally well settled that the High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go beyond the framework of a statute. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the Petitioner herein beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. Applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to special statutes.
3. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:

The Petitioner challenged the Order dated 21.11.2023 by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, which refused to condone the delay in challenging the Order dated 31.05.2023 by the Competent Authority. The appeal was filed on 20.09.2023, beyond the permissible limit.

Applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to Special Statutes:

The Court reiterated that when a statute provides a specific period of limitation, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are excluded. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was cited, emphasizing that special laws prescribing different limitation periods exclude the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 unless expressly included. The Court referenced several judgments, including Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Patel Bros. v. State of Assam, to support this interpretation.

Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The Court noted that High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot go beyond the statutory framework. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Appellate Tribunal's Order dated 21.11.2023, which refused to entertain the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Conclusion:

The writ petition is dismissed, along with any pending applications.