Tripura High Court
Food Corporation Of India And Ors vs Abhijit Paul on 7 September, 2018
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Arindam Lodh
Page - 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.1/2018 in WA No.56/2018
Food Corporation of India and Ors.
---- Petitioner(s).
Versus
Abhijit Paul
---- Respondent(s).
WA No.56/2018
Food Corporation of India and Ors.
---- Petitioner(s).
Versus Abhijit Paul
---- Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Nandi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 07/9/2018 The instant writ appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Single Judge dt.14th December, 2017 pursuant to which the Food Corporation of India (FCI) has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,34,156/- within a period of 3(three) months. It is in reference to the realization of railway demurrage cost from the writ petitioner.
The office has pointed out delay of about 230 days in filing the appeal in support whereof an application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in which it is stated that the applicant-appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 15th December, 2017 but that was rejected by the Registry and, thereafter, he again applied for fresh copy on 16th March, 2018 which was supplied to him on 11th Page - 2 of 2 June, 2018 and after receiving the certified copy the present appeal has been preferred on 1st September, 2018.
The statement made in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application regarding the application earlier filed for obtaining certified copy there is no documentary evidence on record in support thereof and the statement is vague & evasive. Even it has not been mentioned when the application filed by the applicant-appellant for obtaining certified copy was rejected by the office.
As per the material on record, the delay pointed out by the office is of 230 days in filing the present appeal and the explanation which has been tendered is a stereotyped and if that is being permitted, it will frustrate the very mandate of law in filing application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
After we have heard counsel for the applicant-appellant and gone through the explanation tendered in the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, we find no satisfactorily explanation tendered to condone the delay of 230 days prayed for.
Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act stands rejected. In consequence thereof, the appeal[WA No.56/2018] stands dismissed. No costs.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (AJAY RASTOGI), CJ Certificate:- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order. Sukhendu