Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14) In the alternative, Mr. Khandeparkar would submit that omission to substitute the words "Special Tribunal" by "Apex Grievance Redressal Committee" under sub-clause B of Clause (iv) of Section 3D is a drafting error. That the Amendment Act of 2023 established AGRC under Section 34A with retrospective effect from 8 March 2017 and the amendment contemplated filing of all Appeals before AGRC, which were to otherwise lie before the Special Tribunal. Therefore, it is an obvious inadvertence on the part of the draftsman in omitting to substitute AGRC in place of Special Tribunal in the context of Section 45(1A). That it is inconceivable that the Tribunal hearing of Appeal under Section 45 can condone delay but AGRC while hearings various Appeals would not have power to condone delay.

32) Reverting to the main controversy in hand about absence of power of condonation of delay to AGRC for entertaining appeals filed under amended Section 35(1A), it is seen that most of the appeals dealing with implementation of SRS now lie before AGRC. Very few appeals now lie before the Tribunal. Despite this position, the Legislature has not made any provision for applying provisions of Limitation Act to appeals filed before AGRC, while applying them to appeals/applications filed before the Tribunal. In my view, there appears to be a drafting error while amending the provisions of Slum Act by 2023 Amendment, whereby AGRC was constituted under Section 34A and provision for filing of Appeal to AGRC was made in Section 35(1A). As observed above, in relation to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Chapter I-A, the word "Tribunal" appearing in Section 45(1A) has been substituted by the word "Special Tribunal" under Section 3D(e)(xi). Thus, in relation to various remedies to be exercised in relation to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Chapter I-A instead of exercising remedies before the Tribunal, the same could be exercised before the Special Tribunal. However, after the 2023 Amendment, now the remedy of Appeal is mostly exercisable before the AGRC. In that view of the matter, appropriate amendment was required to be effected in Section 3D(e)(xi) by substituting the word "the Tribunal" by the words "the Apex Grievance Redressal Sonali Mane WPL-12524-2024.doc Committee". Such amendment would have ensured power of condonation of delay in respect of Appeals filed before AGRC. The other method could have been to effect direct amendment under Section 45(1A) by including Appeals filed before AGRC therein so as to apply provisions of Limitation Act to such Appeals. In my view, therefore omission to clothe power of condonation of delay on AGRC appears to be more of a drafting error than a conscious decision. I am fortified in my view as there appears to be no plausible reason why the legislature would provide for power of condonation of delay in respect of appeals/applications filed before the Tribunal but not to empower AGRC with similar power while deciding various Appeals filed before AGRC under provisions of the Slum Act.

 Sonali Mane                                                                    WPL-12524-2024.doc


36)               Also of relevance is the fact that the provisions of Slum Act have

been extensively amended from time to time. The amendments are so exhaustive that it sometimes becomes difficult to comprehend the exact scheme of the statute. AGRC was constituted by a Government Resolution without any statutory recognition. 2023 Amendments to the Slum Act were effected essentially with a view to bring AGRC within its statutory framework, which is the reason why some of the sections of Amendment Act are retrospectively inserted from 8 March 2017. It therefore cannot be stated that while creating forum of filing Appeal before AGRC under section 35(1A), there is conscious exclusion on the part of the legislature from applying provisions of Limitation Act to such Appeals. As observed above, the omission to add the words "the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee" either in Section 3D(e)(xi) or Section 45(1A) appears to be a drafting error rather than conscious omission or exclusion.

44) In Bhasker, the Apex Court has thus held that though as the normal Rule, Court will not add words or omit words or substitute words while interpreting the statute, there is well recognised exception to the rule Sonali Mane WPL-12524-2024.doc where the Court can correct obvious drafting errors. I have already held that omission to apply provisions of Limitation Act to Appeals filed before AGRC is an obvious drafting error. Applying the ratio of the Apex Court in Bhasker, I am of the view, that in order to avoid confusion and absurdity it is necessary to read power of condonation of delay in the Slum Act for filing of Appeals before AGRC under Section 35(1A) of the Slum Act.