Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Snehlata Neware vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 M.P. No.1424/2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. No.1424/2020
(Smt. Snehlata Neware vs Union of India and others and others)
Jabalpur Dt. 03.01.2022
Shri Vishal Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
This petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution assails the final order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the OA No.200/769/2019 has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal.
3. Bare facts giving rise to present case are that an order of compulsory retirement in public interest passed on 30.06.2017 was assailed by the petitioner in OA No. 200/769/2019 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Against the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, a representation made by the petitioner on 21.08.2017 which was returned by the respondents on 08.09.2017 to enable the petitioner to prefer it before appropriate authority. Since representation despite having been preferred before the appropriate authority was not being decided, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.200/738/2017 which was disposed of on 03.01.2018 directing the respondents to decide the representation within 60 days. Pursuant thereto, the respondents rejected the representation on 06.02.2018 whereafter the petitioner preferred the review petition on 05.04.2018. Having received no response to the review representation, present OA in question was filed on 08.08.2019 before the Tribunal.
The aforesaid OA filed on 08.08.2019 was filed with delay of about five-six months after expiry of one year of the period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As such, the petitioner moved an application under Section 21 of the Act seeking condonation of delay of 5 months 21 days in preferring the OA.
The said application seeking condonation of delay assigned single reason of petitioner being unwell. However, the said application was not supported by any documents vouching for ailment of the petitioner.
2 M.P. No.1424/2020Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and rejected the OA as time barred in absence of any cogent material to satisfy the reason for delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that there was any cogent material to satisfactorily explain the delay of 5 months 21 days in preferring the OA.
5. The Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has to function within the four corners prescribed under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 21 of the Act and the relevant statutory provision of the Rules reveal that Tribunal is vested with the power of condoning delay occasioned in filing the OA provided the Tribunal is satisfied of existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the OA within the prescribed period of limitation. Meaning thereby, the petitioner who approaches the Tribunal is required to satisfy, based on cogent evidence which ordinarily should be documentary, that the petitioner was prevented from approaching the Tribunal within the period of limitation by some bonafide cause ocassioned by reason beyond his or her control. Merely stating on oath that the petitioner was unwell without any supporting documentary evidence cannot compel the Tribunal to invoke its discretionary power of condoning delay.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that the rejection of the OA of petitioner for being barred by limitation was made while exercising discretionary power available to the Tribunal under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and while doing so the Tribunal did not exceed any of its jurisdictional purviews set by law. Just because another view is possible in the given facts and circumstances cannot be a good ground to interfere.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed sans cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (Smt. Sunita Yadav)
Judge Judge
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.01.11 14:56:23 +05'30'