Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Chandra Sharma vs Yashveer Singh Ghuraiya And Ors. on 21 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)MPHT490
ORDER S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The Second Appellant Authority vide the impugned Order has set aside the Order passed by the Collector disposing of the first appeal on the ground that the said appeal had been presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the First Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal without the condonation of delay in the presentation of the same, which had never been sought for. It has been noticed that in spite of the fact that the first appeal had been presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation, no application had been filed by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the observations to the above effect made by the Second Appellate Authority in the impugned order. It is not disputed that the first appeal itself was barred by time and no application had been filed seeking condonation of delay exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Rule 58 of the M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment & Conditions) Rules, 1968.
4. In this connection, it may be noticed that when there is a specific provision authorising and empowering an authority to condone the delay on making out a sufficient cause from the mere fact that the authority concerned has proceeded to decide the case on merits, it can not be assumed that there is an implied condonation of delay. Sufficient cause for the delay has to be made out for its condonation and only then the concerned authority can assume jurisdiction to go into merits. Further, in the absence of the Order of the concerned authority, it can not be said that the delay, either expressly or by necessary implication had been condoned.
5. In the present case, the appellant had not made out any sufficient cause explaining the delay and there is no finding of the First Appellate Authority in this regard. In these circumstances, the question of implied condonation of delay cannot arise.
6. In the facts and circumstances as brought on record, no justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.