MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD vs MAYANK CHAUHAN

(ORDERS on application for condonation of delay.) The District Forum decided the case on 12.2.2002. The appellant got the copy of the order on 18.2.2002 and filed the appeal on 27.9.2002 after a delay of about more than 7 months.

IT is alleged by the appellant that on merits, the case of the complainant cannot be allowed. Therefore, the appeal be admitted and heard on merits. This is just to go in the reverse gear. We have not to hear the appeal first on merits and to see that if the appeal deserves to be allowed, the delay should necessarily be condoned. The law is otherwise. Even an incorrect judgment is binding on the parties unless set aside. IT can be set aside only if there is an appeal. The appeal can be heard only if it is within time or the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. Now, we have to see whether there is any ground for the condonation of delay. There is nothing in the grounds explaining day to day delay. IT is only said that the appellant is a statutory body. IT takes some time in the formalities and, therefore, delay should be condoned. The Legislature was very much aware of this fact while providing time for limitation that an appeal has to be filed by private individuals as well as statutory bodies. The Legislature could have been conscious of the fact that ordinarily statutory body take time in official formalities. Looking to these facts, period of limitation was provided. There is nothing in the Act that private individual should file the appeal within 30 days and statutory bodies can take any time they like keeping the records on one table for months together. The officers are of the statutory body, they are also presumed to know law and they should move the file keeping in mind the period of limitation and not leisurely. Thus, ordinarily, a delay of few days can be condoned but if they are accustomed to keep the papers on their table for months together, there is no ground to condone the delay and as said above, there is nothing in this case. What the appellant was doing for the last 7 months ? Execution application was filed then the appeal appears to have been filed. The so-called statutory body was sleeping over the matter. The law does not direct the Forum or the Commission to disturb any person to rise from his sleep and to avail the remedies. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the ruling reported in 1999 (3) AWC 2083 (LB), Mst. Fakhrun v. Hafizullah @ Kalloo, wherein it has been held that there should be liberal approach in the matters of limitation. The facts of the ruling are different. There the case was pending. Substitution application was rejected, then the case was dismissed as having abated. In substitution matters, there are provisions for setting aside the abatement. The application was treated as restoration application for setting aside the abatement order. But in the matters like it, there is constant ruling of the National Commission that each day delay has to be explained and if the delay is not explained, limitation is not to be condoned as a matter of charity. In the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 189 (NC), Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Satya Pal Singhal, where too, the Development authority was a government body. The Hon''ble National Commission held that the O.P. cannot sit on it leisurely, take its own time to obtain another copy. Delay of 223 days was not condoned. In this case also, the delay is more than 223 days. In the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 205 (National Commission), Cyma Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Nandini Sriram, it has been held that after the limitation, certain rights are accrued to the complainant. He cannot be deprived of the same, for carelessness on part of other party. Delay of each day not explained, no sufficient cause for delay shown, the appeal has to be dismissed as barred by time. There are various other rulings as well. Our discretion was tried to be availed by the appellant arguing that this is an educational matter and beyond the jurisdiction of Forum. The complainant paid fee, he appeared in the examination, his examination was taken, still he was shown absent. On scrutiny, it was found that he was present. The appellant also agrees that he was present. He was shown as absent. There is necessarily deficiency of service.

The Forum did not pass any extra-ordinary order. It only directed that the complainant be treated present. His copy should be examined and a mark-sheet should be given to him. There was also some dispute of scrutiny. That application was not decided by the Board. The Forum directed that there is no harm in making the scrutiny. The appellant says that he has done all this, but he has given the mark-sheet to the school. The complainant should go there and collect the mark-sheet. It is fantastic, the order was passed against the appellant. It did not send any copy to the complainant. It did not file any copy in the execution proceedings. It did not file any copy of the mark-sheet in this appellate Commission and still perceives that appeal be heard on merits. On 25.10.2002 both parties were present and the appellant told that the mark-sheet have been given. The opposite party told that not yet. The parties were directed to reply this by the next date. But, on that day, instead of giving the copy of the mark-sheet, etc. certain papers were filed by the appellant in support of the appeal. One who seeks equity, must do equity. The appellant should not behave like a private party and should have litigation for mustache sake. It is meant for the service of the people. It should serve on equitable grounds as well. The appellant is not entitled for any liberal view to the condonation of delay. We have not discussed it as a matter of merit but only to show that the appellant is not entitled to any sympathetic or liberal attitude in a matter like this. The appeal is to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, cost shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.