O R D E R
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.
1. This Review Application has been filed under Section 22
(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for review of order dated 23.09.2019 passed in OA No. 797/2017.
2. Alongwith the Review Application, the review applicants
1
have also filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 840/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 327 days in filing the Review Application. The Review Applicants submitted that the delay in filing the Review Application is neither intentional nor deliberate; rather the same has been caused due to the circumstances beyond the control of Review Applicant.
3. The respondents/applicants in OA have filed reply to the condonation application and opposed the prayer made by the applicant therein for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. It is also argued that Rule 17
(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Further reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon"ble Gauhati High Court (DB) in WP (C)/3034 of 2021 dated 27.03.2023, Union of India Versus Chanchal Nag wherein it has been held that Tribunal has no power to condone the delay and entertain the review application beyond a period of 30 days. The respondents also relied upon the findings given by the Hon"ble Orissa High Court (DB) in Original Jurisdiction
Case No. 4532 of 1998 dated 03.07.2003, Rajayya
2
Bodi Versus Union of India wherein it has been held that Tribunal has no power to entertain the review application as admittedly it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The Review Applicants have relied upon the judgement passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 5564 of 2023 titled Surendra Kumar Vs. Union of India through Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors.
dated 24.08.2023. The contention of the Review Applicant is that his case is covered by Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing the Review Application before the Administrative Tribunal.
6. It has been submitted by the Review Applicants that the Hon"ble Allahabad High Court has taken note of judgement passed by the Apex Court in the matter of K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 639 and also S.S. Rathore Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989)4 SCC 582. The learned counsel for the review applicants submits that application for condonation of delay in a Review Application is maintainable.
7. On the other side, the respondents/applicants in OA have relied upon the judgement passed by this Tribunal in Review Application No. 7/2024 with MAs No. 424 and
3
425 of 2024 wherein this Tribunal has held that MA for condoning delay in filing the Review Application is not maintainable.
8. The respondents further submit that as per judgement passed by the Hon"ble Apex Court in K. Ajit Babu (supra), it has been held that right of review is available if such application is filed within period of limitation. Otherwise, there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision.
9. In the instant case, application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the Review Application.
10. The Rule 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under:-
"22. Procedure and powers of Tribunals - (1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private.
(2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and [after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced].
(3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of [discharging its functions under this Act], the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
4
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence of affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex- parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex-parte ; and
(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government."
11. The Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 reads as under:-
"17. Application for review. - (1) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed.
(2) A review application shall ordinarily be heard by the same Bench which has passed the order, unless the Chairman may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct it to be heard by any other Bench.
(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Bench concerned, a review application shall be disposed of by circulation and the Bench may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the opposite party.
(4) When an application for review of any judgment or order has been made and disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same manner.
(5) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is supported by a duly sworn affidavit indicating therein the source of knowledge, personal or otherwise, and also those which are sworn on the basis of the legal advice. The counter affidavit in review application will also be a duly sworn affidavit wherever any averment of fact is disputed.
12. The Hon"ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Surendra Kumar (supra) has framed the following question of law:-
"D. Analysis
14. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available before this Court in the instant writ petition, we find that a very interesting question emerges for consideration, which can be framed as herein below:-
"Whether the Central Administrative has power to condone
5
the delay in filing a review application against its judgement exercising power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in view of section 21 & 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 and Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987?"
And, after discussing the various judgements, the Hon"ble High Court has concluded as under:-
"46. Accordingly, this Court observes that the judgements of Full Benches of Hon"ble High Court of Orissa, Hon"ble High Court of Kolkata and Hon"ble High Court of Kerala are relevant law on the issue. Hence, this Court holds that an application for condonation of delay in Review Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is maintainable and accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not preferring an pplication within the time has been supplemented."
13. This Tribunal has considered the judgement passed by the Hon"ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Hon"ble High Court has observed that the Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides that any review filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But the Rules do not exclude the applicability of Limitation Act. The relevant para 28 of the judgement reads as under:-
"28. Although, the aforesaid rule provides that any review filed before an Administrative Tribunal cannot be entertained unless it is filled within thirty days from the receipt of the copy of the order. However, having traced the review making power of the Tribunal, it can be safely deduced that neither section 22 of the Act, which gives the power of review to an Administrative Tribunal, nor rule 17, which provides for application of review, expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act. Further, the word; "no application for review shall be entertained", intended to mean that no review application would be entertained until and unless the same is filed within 30 days. It
6
does not say and perhaps it cannot say to curtail the scope of statute that no application for condonation of delay in filing the same, could be made when an application for review was not filed within the time framed in Rule 17. Apparently, Rule 17 prescribes for making of the application for review to save the purpose of statute and cannot be extended to mean that an application for condonation of delay is specifically barred. In fact, the Tribunal bound by the principle of natural justice and some provisions of Code of Civil Procedure were created to ensure an expeditious process unlike the time taking process by the Civil Courts in the matter of civil disputes. The bar of remedy was never an intention of law. The meaning and import of the negative couching of the said rule 17 relating to maintainability of review within 30 days can be well explained as held by a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Haris K.M v. Jahfar: 2020 SCC Online Kerala 4009 in the following words:
"18. The reason according to us is apparent, since the power granted is the power to review under the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions relating to Review in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are contained in Section 114 and Order XLVII. Article 124 of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation for a petition for review under the Civil Procedure Code as 30 days. However, since the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also applicable and a Review Petition can be filed beyond the period of 30 days, if the petitioner is able to show sufficient cause for the delay.
19. In exercise of power conferred under Section 35(2)(d),
(e) and (1) and Section 36(c), the Central Government has promulgated the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010. Rule 21 of the Rules says that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of the order of which the review is sought. As already observed, the rule making power does not take in power to make rules for fixing a period of limitation for filing a review application. Such a prescription of 30 days, which is the same as the one prescribed under the Limitation Act, for filing a review petition under the Code of Civil Procedure, was totally unnecessary and uncalled for. Even without Rule 21, the review application ought to be filled within 30 days. Since the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 21 is the same as that applicable for a review petition under the Code of Civil Procedure, we do not think it is necessary to strike down Rule 21. All the same, Rule 21 has to be necessarily subject to the provisions of Section 29 of the Limitation Act which specifically says that provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply to a prescription of limitation under any special or local law. That is to say, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in preferring a Review Petition is maintainable".
14. The learned counsel for the other side has submitted that the Administrative Tribunal Act is a special Act and
7
as per provisions of Section 22 (f), Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 have been framed in exercise of power conferred by clause (d)(e)(f) of sub section 2) of Section 35 and clause (c) of Section 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 17 has prescribed the period of thirty days for filing the review application from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants in OA submits that the competent authority has framed 1987 Rules after due application of mind which is also clear as per Rule 17 itself.
16. The respondents/review applicants have also relied upon the judgement passed by this Tribunal in RA No. 7/2024 titled Dr. Sunita Mehta Vs. UOI & Ors. which has also relied upon K. Ajit Babu (supra) which has also been relied upon by Guwahat High Court in the case of Chanchal Nag (supra). The relevant para of this Review Application is as under:-
"10. The Hon"ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Chanchal Nag (supra), while following the law proposition established by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu (supra) held that the Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expressly conferred the power by the statute creating it. It has been held as under:-
8
"8. As stated above, the limitation for filing a review application is 30 days, as provided in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987. Thus, the Act of 1985 lays down specific provisions with regard to limitation as well as the power for condonation thereof. Hence, the proceedings under the Act of 1985 cannot be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, which is a general law governing issues of Imitation arising in proceedings before Courts. This view is further fortified when we consider the ratio of the judgments relied upon by Dr. Sharma in the cases of International Asset (supra) and Sakuru (supra), wherein it has been stipulated that the proceedings before a statutory Tribunal cannot be placed at par with proceedings before a court. The Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expressly conferred the power by the statute creating it. As Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 expressly provides timeline of 30 days for entertaining a review application, unless the statutory provision is declared to be ultra vires such power cannot be read to the statute by a judicial pronouncement.
9. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that it has no power to condone the delay and entertain the review application beyond a period of 30 days. Thus, the rejection of the Misc. Application No.149/2019, filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of the gross and inordinate delay of 768 days in filing the Review Application by the impugned order dated 08.06.2020, does not call for any interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As we have decided this issue in favour of the respondent, the second limb of argument advanced by Dr. Sharma is left open for consideration."
17. In view of the above position, it is crystal clear that Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is a special Act and Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)(e)(f) of sub section 2) of Section 35 and clause (c) of Section 36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 17 has prescribed the period of thirty days for filing the review application from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal.
18. The Hon"ble Gauhati High Court in Chanchal Nag
9
(supra) while relying upon the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu (supra) has held that the Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expressly conferred the power by the statute creating it. Admittedly, the Administrative Tribunal is a special Act and the Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 have been framed under Section 35 and 36 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Under Rule 17 of these Rules, no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days of the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of the Tribunal.
19. In view of the above, this Tribunal has no power to entertain the application for condonation of delay for reviewing the order of the Tribunal. Resultantly, MA No. 840/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Application is hereby dismissed and accordingly RA is also dismissed.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
10