AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Orders dated 03.01.2020 of the State Commission in complaints no. 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) is present.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 is also present
Learned proxy counsel having the authority to argue the matter appears on behalf of the respondent no. 7 and 8.
None appears for respondents no. 1 to 6 though the order-sheet shows that appearance has been put on their behalf on a previous date i.e. on 02.03.2023.
Notice on the appeal was ordered to be issued on 30.12.2021. The opposite parties put in appearance on 26.04.2022. The ideal normative period for deciding an appeal as provided in section 19A of the Act 1986 (corresponding section 52 of the Act 2019) is 90 days of its admission. We deem it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned counsel present and not to delay it any further.
The appeals have been filed with admitted delay of 39 days.
However, in the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the applications for condonation of delay, in order to decide the matters on merit rather than to dismiss them on the threshold of limitation, the delay is condoned.
We see that similar facts and same questions of law are involved in all four appeals. As such they are being disposed of vide this common order, with appeal no. 410 of 2020 being taken as the lead case.
Heard and perused the record.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complaint was primarily dismissed on the ground of limitation as the State Commission was of the view that they were filed after the expiry of limitation period. Relevant extract of the Order dismissing the complaint may be quoted hereinbelow which reads as thus:
“In view of our specific finding on point No. 1, the complaint fled by the complaint is barred by limitation. When the complaint itself is barred by limitation, the question of granting of reliefs sought for by the complainant does not arise. Therefore, there is no need to discuss these points elaborately. Hence, the point Nos. 2 to 5 are answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties.”
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the observation made by the State Commission in its Order where it has been observed that “….for the reasons best known, the complainant did not chose even to file an application to condone the delay….”. Submission is that the complainants are farmers and were not properly guided and the application seeking the condonation of delay could not be moved. Submission is that as the failure to move appropriate application seeking the condonation of delay appears to have adversely influenced the decision of the State Commission while giving its findings regarding the aspect of limitation and, therefore, it will subserve the cause of justice to provide the complainant at least the occasion and opportunity to move such application before the State Commission so that the grounds on the basis of which the appellant claims that the complaint should be either not treated as time-barred or in case the same being treated beyond the period of limitation, the sufficiency of the cause to file the complaint with delay may be examined by the State Commission in order to decide whether the delay deserves to be condoned or not. Contention is that dismissing the complaint at its threshold will leave the complainants remediless and the damage will be beyond repairs. It has been submitted that in such circumstances just providing an opportunity to move an application and press its grounds on the point of limitation will be expedient to arrive at the ends of justice.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 9 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 7 and 8 do not raise any objection if the matter is remanded back for providing opportunity to the complainant to move appropriate application on the aspect of period of limitation and for the same to be adjudicated afresh on its merits.
The record has been perused in the light of the submissions made by rival sides.
The contention raised on behalf of the complainant / appellant does not seem to be wholly without substance. Learned counsel appearing for respondents too have no objection. It appears to be expedient in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded back in order to provide an opportunity to the complainant to move appropriate application detailing its grounds addressing the point of limitation in order to seek the condonation of delay.
The impugned order stands set aside. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission. The State Commission is directed to provide opportunity to the complainant to move appropriate application as directed above and decide the same on its merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.08.2023. In case any of the parties does not appear on the date fixed the State Commission shall issue notice to them and proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel. The Registry is also requested to forthwith communicate this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.