9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dr. D.M. Misra, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Anjan Dutta, S. Biswas and D. Ghoshal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Agarwal, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : S.K. Gaule, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for restoration of appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. The contention of the applicant is that on the date of hearing on 22-9-2011 they could not reach when their application was taken up for disposal. In these circumstances the order dismissing their appeal is recalled and restored. The applicant have also filed application for condonation of delay of 261 days. The same is taken up for disposal. The contention of the applicant is that delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ammu and Kashmir), in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others - AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). 3. Ld. A.R. appearing for the Department, in all fairness pointed out the delay is 170 days and not 261 days as submitted by the applicant. The contention is that order in original was received by the applicant on 8-11-2002 and the appeal has been filed on 27-7-2005 after excluding the period for filing the appeal, the delay comes to 170 days. The contention is that the applicant could not explain the delay for the period from 4-2-2005 to 5-4-2005, 26-4-2005 to 9-6-2005 and 9-6-2005 to 27-7-2005. The contention is that the advocate of the applicant have informed them on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted them hearing on 1-11-2002, 2-2-2004, 5-2-2004, 20-5-2004 and 14-7-2004. The applicant did not avail the opportunity. The contention is that before this Tribunal they were given hearing for 8 times on 5-5-2009, 14-5-2009, 3-6-2009, 15-10-2009, 12-1-2010, 20-1-2010, 22-2-2010 and 29-4-2010. Undisputedly, the applicant received the impugned order on 8-1-2004 and the appeal has been filed on 27-7-2005 after excluding the period allowed for filing the appeal, the delay works out to 170 days. 6. We find that the applicant could not explain delay for the period 4-2-2005 to 5-4-2005, 26-4-2005 to 9-6-2005, from 9-6-2005 to 27-7-2005. Section 35 provides for condonation of delay in filing appeal if sufficient cause is shown. Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
