Karnataka High Court
M/S Orange County Resorts And Hotels ... vs Mr. Justice (Retd) M.Karpaga Vinayagam on 21 April, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
fee oe Sys ue " seo Soand posed 3 pourg dyed 2 em ca oo Dogger < "ESS BPR 8 RE PR OM PWS LISS EP Pho Phas ERAS HH 655 AR, ee ee ee ek ek ee ke Retired Chief Justice of a discheyed the jewful order owho ere the chair order in the writ petition. Further, it was made clear if G24 the complainant f n appeal withm four weeks from a the date of the order before the appellate autherity', the objection as.to the limitation and - spose of the matter on its merits. in accordence., with 2. The grievance of the complainant in this tion to petition is inspite of the aforesaid. positive dr the appellate authority, the tribunel refused to en | without.an-appleation for condonation of gaged by this Court. we 3:. Therefore, notice was issued to the respondents
reon and member of the appellate tribunal.
4, After service of notice, they entered BDDCETETIC'. il Le st, on tine ee i ek a ek ee ee ee ke eee ek ee ee ee ao ee ORY a Advocate General who represented by the sought time to remedy the r Spay 7 2011 injortitg * tory order which: sets out-..the under which they. (ps assed the order to contenupt of this ¢ Court. In fact, for a proper appreciation it is fecessary ' ts exiract what is n the orter whict is complied: -
Hews er, , while allowing the Appellant , the Hig] to entertain ar splication to céndone = delay. This order,
- passed by the High Court, m our view . » ec corlsoriance with the relevant provisions of tt 2 Act, cal the limitation point can be 8 coneider only by thie Tribunal and the High Court is not empowered to give any such direction to this Tribunal.
OF herefore, we are unable to comply with the 16 e direction of the High Court. On the ' other d, we are constrained to deal with the queation as to whether the Appeal is maintainable without any application to comdione the delay. We are of the view that a8 per _pection til of the Electricity Act, 3, t eal is not maintainable in the , ee SNE ESE NT EE OT ETE Woh I UP ONAL AIA MiGh COURT QF KARNATAKA hMiGH COURT oe ua pe. alre . same is recal led absence of the to condone the delay ~ 'Counsel jor "the rmission to file - the Le the delay in filing _ App of this request; we deom | it appropriate to ; it the. Appellarit to. file'~ ~~ the Application to condone telay we 2:
s committed: a grave. ia obser atone "about the. tation 1 which by the Hon'ble 1 Court. ore, it would be appropriate | te recall the order by ¢
8. Before par that we have got ii Court, The order a been 19.1.2011 without any © other motive but only with boneafide intention. Therefore we feel.
MAEMINOAISINES FIG GWWRE WE RMAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR SO a accept the. mistake, retrace the atepa, « my passed, we are satisfied . the eppellate authority ten upheld the di that the ordera of the Hon'ble High C _ passed on 18.11.2010 as well as on. 19.4.2011 have to be followed by th _ Tribunal without arry ervatien. ~-. uently, all the other orders also are .~ Hed except the order dated..1.4.2011 by which order, the Appeal has been admitted". | To err iw hu but realizing the mmistale :
retracing the steps shows the magnanimity. At-last, the n due Teapot tt this inition, orich it deserves. s should be: an eye opener wall other authorities who are fanétiont Court. Even if by 1 have the courage + | express. their since assed the order. When the same ia pointed out, they have retraced the stepe and lity of the Court and the, rule of \, el pr LYENOD HOW VRILINAYY IO NOOO On wowed eo Pr CUE Heo eu women MH G8, tt