AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J.—Present application bearing I A. No. 1097 of 2010 has been filed for condoning the delay of 428 days in filing of this appeal.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that present appeal has been filed u/s 15 of the Jharkhand Educational Tribunal Act 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as JET Act) It is further submitted that no period of limitation has been prescribed in the JET Act, hence the office note that appeal is barred by law of limitation and there is delay of 428 days in filing the appeal is misconceived.
Sri Ananda Sen, Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that though the limitation prescribed in the various Articles of Limitation Act have no application in the instant case, but in view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court, the appeal must be filed within reasonable time. It is submitted that as per Section 10 1(b) of JET Act original application can be filed before the Tribunal within six months from the date of issuance of impugned order. Thus in the instant case reasonable period for filing the appeal is six months from the date of passing of order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that as in the instant case, appeal has been filed after the delay of more than one year i.e. 428 days, therefore, same is liable to dismissed on the ground of delay.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case and relevant law. As noticed above, present appeal has been filed u/s 15 of the JET Act. From perusal of Section 15 of the JET Act, I find that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing the appeal. Section 10 of the JET Act prescribed procedure of filing of application before the Tribunal. Whereas Section 11 of the JET Act prescribed the procedure to be followed by Tribunal for the disposal of cases pending before it.
It may be mentioned that under the Limitation Act 90 days time prescribed for filing appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no provision in the limitation Act which prescribed the period of limitation for filing appeal against an order or Judgment passed under any special law such as JET Act. On query the stamp reporter of this Court stated that they calculated the period of limitation treating the present appeal as an appeal filed under the CPC because in Dropadi Versus Hiralal, 34 All 495 it has been held by Hon''ble Allahabad High Court that there are several Acts, for example, the Succession Act, the Probate and Administration Act and the Land Acquisition Act, which made C.P.C. Applicable to the proceedings under those Acts and give a right of appeal to the High Court, but do not prescribe any period of limitation for the appeal, it has always been assumed that such appeals are appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, thus governed by Limitation Act.
In my view, the aforesaid decision of Hon''ble Allahabad High Court has no application in this case. Their Lordships come to the aforesaid conclusion because the various Acts considered by Allahabad High Court provides that procedure prescribed under the CPC will be applicable to the cases filed under those Acts. In the instant case, appeal has been filed u/s 15 of the JET Act. Section 11(1) of the JET Act specifically provide that the procedure prescribed in C.P.C. have no application in the disposal of cases by the Tribunal. Thus ratio decided by Allahabad High Court has no application so far it relates to appeal filed under the JET Act. Accordingly I held that limitation prescribed for filing appeals under Article 156 of the Limitation Act will not governed the appeal filed under JET Act. Consequently, I held that Stamp Reporter of this Court is not correct in pointing out that there is delay of 428 days in filing the present appeal.
It is true that Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that even if a statue does not prescribe the time for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time, rather it should be exercised within reasonable time, it is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled, after long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo moto or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, .
Thus, in the cases in which, the statue has not specifically provided the period of limitation, it is necessary for the court to see as to whether the appeal has been filed within a reasonable period or not. Thus for that purpose, the court is required to see the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. In the instant case, there is delay of 428 days in filing the appeal from the date of impugned order. The applicant has stated that after receiving the order, he went to his village for attending his ailing mother and after return from there, he filed the present appeal. Thus it appears that appellant has been prevented from sufficient cause from filing the appeal at the earlier point of time. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that appeal has been filed within a reasonable period. Thus same can be entertained in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I direct the office to post this appeal for Admission.
Accordingly, I. A. No. 1097 of 2010 stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be served upon the Registrar General and the Stamp Reporter for future course of action.