Ambuja Cements Ltd. vs Union of India

A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the parties in view of short controversy is involved in this first appeal. This first appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition was dismissed. In support of the appeal, Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and simultaneously recording findings on merits of the matter. According to him, if the Railway Claims Tribunal was not satisfied with the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition, it could have only rejected the application for condonation of delay and could not have proceeded to determine the matter on merits. At any rate, according to him, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed since there were reasons for condoning the delay in filing he claim petition and powers u/s 17(2) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 could have been liberally utilized by the Tribunal. According to him, the reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition are not legal, correct and proper.

Per contra, Mr. Lambat, the learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that as a matter of fact, the application for condonation of delay does not at all demonstrate any plausible explanation for the long delay of about a year, so also, no sufficient reasons were furnished in the application with any proper material to facilitate the Tribunal to find out whether the reasons were sufficient or not. At any rate, according to him, the case of appellant, taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected. He relied on the decisions reported in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India and Others, and Birla Cement Works Vs. G.M., Western Railways, and another, .

We have gone through the impugned order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal. We have gone through the relevant provisions of both the Acts. Section 17 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 permits filing of claim petition beyond the period of limitation unlike the suits, along with an application for condonation of delay. It is fact that the averments in the application for condonation of delay are vague and without any materials.

We find that sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act provides for such a power in the Tribunal provided it is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. That appears to be a special provision where even after three years claim can be filed. In the instant case, the Tribunal has rejected the application for condonation of delay, but then, it has recorded a finding on the merits of the matter by holding that there was non-compliance of Section 106 of the Railways Act and that being a mandatory provision, the claim was not tenable. It is well settled that if a Court decides to reject application for condonation of delay and rather rejects it, it cannot go ahead and decide the matter on merits. See para 5 (para 3 of AIR) in the case reported in Commissioner Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another, . That has not happened in the instant case since the Tribunal has not only dismissed the application for condonation of delay but also rejected the matter on merits. The question whether the claim was liable to be rejected in view of non-compliance of Section 106 of the Railways Act was the question required to be decided on merits. But then, as earlier stated, it was decided while disposing of the application for condonation of delay. According to us, this is an illegality committed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The judgments cited by Mr. Lambat, the learned counsel for the respondent, have no application in the facts of this case. In the above peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that the following order would sub serve the end of justice.

ORDER

First Appeal No. 1073 of 2011 is partly allowed.

The impugned order dated 28th of July. 2011 passed in I.A. No. 14/RCT/NGP/2009 in Claim Application No. QA(III)/1/RCT/NAG/2009 is set aside.

The application I.A. No. 14/RCT/NGP/2009 in Claim Application No. QA(III)/1/RCT/NAG/2009 is sent back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for hearing the matter afresh on the question of condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, then only the Tribunal shall enter into the merits of the matter.

None of the observations made by us shall influence the Tribunal while deciding the matter afresh on condonation of delay, or as the case may be. No order as to costs.