Sher Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

“7.

Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 provides an express bar against entertainment of a Review Application unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. By holding that this limitation of 30 days is not mandatory and can be extended by resorting to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court virtually declared the statutory provision to be ultra vires. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a special law. Section 21(1) of the Act of 1985 prescribes limitations for filing of the original applications, which is one year for making the application. The power of condonation of delay for a period not exceeding six months to entertain the original application has been vested with the Tribunal under Sub-Section (3) of Section 21.

8.

As stated above, the limitation for filing a review application is 30 days, as provided in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987. Thus, the Act of 1985 lays down specific provisions with regard to limitation as well as the power for condonation thereof. Hence, the proceedings under the Act of 1985 cannot be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, which is a general law governing issues of limitation arising in proceedings before Courts. This view is further fortified when we consider the ratio of the judgments relied upon by Dr. Sharma in the cases of International Asset (supra) and Sakuru (supra), wherein it has been stipulated that the proceedings before a statutory Tribunal cannot be placed at par with proceedings before a court. The Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expressly conferred the power by the statute creating it. As Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 expressly provides timeline of 30 days for entertaining a review application, unless the statutory provision is declared to be ultra vires such power cannot be read into the statute by a judicial pronouncement.

9.

Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that it has no power to condone the delay and entertain the review application beyond a period of 30 days. Thus, the rejection of the Misc. Application No.149/2019, filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of the gross and inordinate delay of 768 days in filing the Review Application by the impugned order dated 08.06.2020, does not call for any interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As we have decided this issue in favour of the respondent, the second limb of argument advanced by Dr. Sharma is left open for consideration.

10.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is rejected. No order as to costs.”