9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that on the last two occasions also, none appeared for the applicant, the application was dismissed. 3.1 I have heard Shri L.S. Seth. Advocate for the applicant and Shri Nitin Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 On going through the application, I do not find any satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Learned counsel is also not able to provide any satisfactory reason to explain the delay. It is settled law that for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the delay needs to be explained to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Post master General [2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (S.C)] stated as follows: "1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Review Proceedings would be sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This query was raised by the Court because in numerous matters, this Court finds enormous delay in the filing of special leave petitions on the ground that the petitioner has been prosecuting review proceedings on which count there was delay in filing the special leave petition. There is one more reason why this Court raised the above query. There is divergence of opinion among Courts whether the prosecution of Review Proceedings would be sufficient cause at all for purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. For this purpose we requested Shri Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel, to assist us in answering the query raised hereinabove. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special leave petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition..." 5.1 In Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., [AIR 1962 SC 361] Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "It is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s). 5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay." 7.1 In the case of Brijesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana, reported in [(2014) 11 SCC 351] Hon'ble Apex Court has obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
