ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Petitioner who has suffered some punishment order was before the State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.551/2023 calling the same in question.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that in matters like this, the delay should not figure as a factor at all especially when the Covid-19 Pandemic had intervened and relaxation had been granted by the Apex Court for all the citizens in a wholesale way in the matter of limitation. He also points
- 3 -
out that the Tribunal selectively employed Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and somehow not adverting to its other provisions which would have come to the aid of Petitioner and thus, infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court, has crept in.
3. Learned AGA on request appearing for the official Respondents resist the Petition contending that the Tribunal having considered the matter of delay in the right way has denied relief to the Petitioner; after all, law will not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy, there being no proper explanation offered for the long delay brooked; order of the Tribunal denying relief cannot be faltered. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having read the Petition papers, we are with the considered opinion that a legitimate cause brought to the Court cannot be turned down on delay & laches per se; after all, Section 21 of the 1985 Act provides for construing the explanation offered for the delay liberally,
- 4 -
vide our decision in SEETHALAXMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72. In considering explanation for condoning delay, merits of the main matter also should figure. After all, if delay was condoned, that would not have added merits to the case of Petitioner, to the disadvantage of the other side. All these aspects have not been duly adverted to by the Tribunal.
5. learned counsel for the Petitioner Prof. Nagarajan is right in drawing our attention to the selective advertence of the Tribunal to the provisions of Section 21 of the 1985 Act. The provisions of this Section do not put an embargo on the condonation of delay, in worthy matters. A plausible explanation has been offered by the litigant as to how the delay happened in the matter. It hardly needs to be stated on the basis of delay per se, a worthy cause of a citizen cannot be thrown out of the court window. An argument to the contrary would shake the confidence of right thinking people in judicial process.
- 5 -
In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed and impugned order of the Tribunal is set at naught. The matter in Application No.551/2023 is remitted to the portals of Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
BSV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9