Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Debasish Chakraborty & Anr vs Union Of India & on 24 January, 2020
1
01 24.01.2020
pg
W.P.C.T. 142 of 2019
(Debasish Chakraborty & Anr. vs. Union of India &
Ors.)
Mr. Sudip Krishna Dutta
Ms. Annayasha Chakraborty.......for the petitioners
Mr. Rabindranath Bag
Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee
Mr. Aveek Biswas.............for the respondents 1 to 3
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick.....for the respondent no. 4 The records of O.A. 803 of 2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereafter the 'tribunal') were called for by our order dated January 10, 2020. Such records have been placed before us today.
We find from the records that O.A. 803 of 2013, presented by the respondent no.4 before us, was allowed by the tribunal by its order dated November 19, 2019. Such order is under challenge in this writ petition, which is at the instance of the private respondents before the tribunal, on several grounds; the first of which is that although the original application was belatedly presented before the tribunal by the respondent no. 4 together with an application for condonation of delay (M.A. 334 of 2013), the relevant Bench of the tribunal did not take care to dispose of such application with the result that the original application has been heard on merits and decided without there being any formal order condoning the delay in presentation of the original application.
The contention raised by the petitioners has substance. Although the original application was filed as far back as on July 29, 2013 and was pending for more 2 than six years, none of the Benches, which had the occasion to consider the same, took pains to consider the application for condonation of delay and dispose of the same. We find that even on November 18, 2019 when the relevant Bench reserved orders on the original application, the application for condonation of delay was on board. It would have been appropriate for the Bench to at least dispose of the application for condonation of delay alongwith the original application by its order dated November 19, 2019. Unfortunately, the fact that the application for condonation of delay was still pending has escaped the notice of the members of the relevant Bench.
A point has been raised on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that the petitioners had not appeared before the relevant Bench on November 19, 2019 and none on behalf of the respondents took objection to the original application being heard on merits without the delay in approaching the tribunal being condoned.
The aforesaid contention does not impress us. Even if a respondent does not raise any objection, we feel that it is the duty of the tribunal to consider the issue of condonation of delay in presentation of the original application and provided the delay is condoned, to proceed for admission of the original application. Although the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not, ipso facto, apply to proceedings before the tribunal, the essence of section 3 thereof has to be followed by the tribunal while considering an application for condonation of delay having regard to the provisions contained in sections 21 and 20 of the Administrative 3 Tribunals Act, 1985.
In view of the above, we have no other alternative but to set aside the order dated November 19, 2019 on this short ground. It is, accordingly, set aside.
This order would result in revival of O.A. 803 of 2013 with M.A. 334 of 2013.
Since the applications have been long pending, we request the tribunal to dispose of the same as early as possible but preferably within two months from date of receipt of a copy of this order upon granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
To expedite a decision on the application for condonation of delay, we grant liberty to the petitioners to file their reply affidavit to such application by Friday next (January 31, 2020); rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by Tuesday week (February 4, 2020).
Needless to observe, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and the parties are free to raise all points that are available to them in law before the tribunal for a decision by it.
The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Let the records of O.A. 803 of 2013 be OFFICE returned to the tribunal immediately by the office.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously. (PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.)(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) 4