Gauhati High Court
M/S Megha Technical And Engineer Pvt. ... vs The Union Of India And Anr on 14 September, 2022
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010092612021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/126/2021
M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL AND ENGINEER PVT. LTD
MAYUR GARDEN, 2ND FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI- 781011, ASSAM
2:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
EASTERN RAILWAY
17-NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P MAHESWARI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH 14.09.2022 Heard Ms. C. Saha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the N.F. Railways.
This is an application under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Page No.# 2/3 Act, 1987 challenging the judgment and order dated 11.03.2021 passed in MA/GHY/2015/0031 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the claim application was rejected on the ground that there was a delay of 6 months 14 days in filing the claim application.
The learned counsel for the respondents, drawing the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 21.07.2022, passed in MFA No.54/2021 and Others, submitted that the issues involved in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment wherein this Court had condoned the delay of only 3 (three) months in all the said appeals and further came to a finding that condoning of delay beyond the period of 3 (three) months would tantamount to legislate and violate the provisions of Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Paragraph Nos. 36 & 37 of the said judgment dated 21.07.2022, passed in MFA No.54/2021 and others are quoted herein below:-
"36. From the above contentions, it would be clear that the fault in not filing the claim application on time was due to the fault of the counsel. However, the applicants/appellants herein cannot be oblivious to the statutory mandate of filing the claim applications within time and their responsibility do not come to an end merely by handing over the papers to their legal counsel. The litigant has to also see to that his/her/their counsel/legal practitioner had duly filed the claim applications within time, more so, taking into consideration that the appellants before this Court, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, were regularly in the business of transporting goods through the Railways. Inaction on the part of the appellants tantamounts to sleeping over their rights and the aspect of gross negligence creeps into the fold. It may have been that the applicants/appellants were under an impression that their counsel had filed Page No.# 3/3 his/her/their application within time or the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant kept the appellants/applicants at dark that the applications were not filed within time. There is no material brought on record to that effect except the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The concept of reasonableness therefore has to be embedded in order to ascertain the question of due diligence which in effect would also show as to whether the applicants/appellants were negligent in pursuing with their claim applications.
37. Upon applying the concept of due diligence, this Court is of the opinion that a period of 3 (three) months from the last date of filing the claim applications can be taken as a reasonable period within which the appellants/applicants ought to have exercised the due diligence by making enquiries with his/her/their counsel and found out as to whether the applications were duly filed or not. This is more so when there are no materials brought on record to show that the applicants/appellants were under impression that the claim applications were filed on time after taking into consideration the proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1987. Any period beyond 3 (three) months from the last date of filing, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be constituted to be reasonable for condoning the delay inasmuch as, in the opinion of this Court, the same would negate the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1987 and tantamount to legislation by this Court."
Taking into account the said judgment passed by this Court, this Court also dismisses the instant appeal as the delay in the instant appeal was 6 months 14 days in filing the claim application.
In view of the above, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant