M. Rajendran vs The Assistant Settlement Officer, Villipuram and The Thiruvotteeswaranpet Devasthanam

Nainar Sundaram, J.—By the impugned order, the revision preferred by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, hereinafter

referred to as ''the Act'', has been rejected by the first respondent on the ground of bar of limitation. The order which was sought to be revised,

according to the first respondent was served on one P. Quintus and the date of such service has been counted for the purpose of computation of

time limit. We find that R.38(1) of the Rules framed under the Act contemplates personal service either on the person concerned or his counsel or

authorised agent or some adult member of his family. It is not claimed that the said Quintus is either the counsel of the petitioner or his authorised

agent or an adult member of his family. What is suggested is that the said Quintus is an employee working under the petitioner. It is not stated that

he is an authorised agent of the petitioner to receive notices under the Act or under the Rules framed under the Act. In such a contingency, the date

of such service cannot be counted for the computation of period of limitation. On the other hand, the period must be computed only from the date

of communication of the certified copy of the order. If so computed, the revision presented by the petitioner would be within time. In this view, the

writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to take up the revision for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.