HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. : 03

Date : 20.12.2023

    Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the contested order passed on 27.09.2023 in IA/28/2023 filed by Arun Kumar Sau on 31.03.2023, arising from Appeal A/20/2023 filed before this Commission at Asansol West Bengal, that was preferred by the Appellant Arun Kumar Sau against the contested judgement of CC/56/2019 dated 10.02.2023 filed by the Appellant as Complainant in CC/56/2019, before the Ld. DCDRC, Bankura, the complainant of CC/56/2019 i.e. the Appellant of Appeal 20/2023 and the Applicant of IA/28/2023, Sri Arun Kumar Sau as well has preferred this Review Petition dated 01.11.2023 before this Commission challenging the impugned order dated 27.09.2023, the impact of which rejected his filed IA/28/2023 that was filed by Arun Kumar Sau, seeking for condonation of delay in preferring Appeal (A/20/2023) dated 31.03.2023 against the impugned judgement of CC/56/2019 pronounced on contest by the Ld. DCDRC, Bankura on 10.02.2023, on contested hearing and made the existence of Appeal A/20/2023, preferred by him, as meritless and otiose.

    The gist of the Review Application No. 1/2023 dated 01.11.2023 reveals that the Review Petitioner Arun Kumar Sau contended that though this Commission held that there was delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal but this Commission had not taken into consideration that since the first Appeal was preferred as per Section 41/47 of the C.P. Act of 2019 as the said Act has prospective effect, so there remained no scope to file or entertain the first Appeal under Section 15/17 of the old C.P. Act of 1986 and on the basis of that principal, the 15 days delay of filing the Appeal, as per old Act, as determined by this Commission, is not proper and correct in the eye of law.

    By filing this review petition the Review Petitioner has prayed for reviewing the order dated 27.09.2023 and to restore the First Appeal No. A/20/2023 for proper adjudication for the interest of justice.

Decision with reasons

    The Review Petitioner Arun Kumar Sau has contended to review, as per scopes of Section 50 of the C.P. Act of 2019 the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by this Commission in IA/28/2023 filed by him on 31.03.2023, on the ground as reflected above in the contents of this order.

    The scopes of Section 50 of the C.P. Act of 2019 has been very specific granting power to the SCDRC to review any of the order passed by it, if there is any error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on application made by any of the parties to the complaint case from where impugned order has been passed seeking review. Error apparent means a patent mistake which one could point out without any elaborate argument.

    The Review Petitioner intended to contend in this Review Application that the limitation period to prefer an appeal from a case, governed by and run as per scopes of the C.P. Act of 1986, should be determined according to the scopes of the C.P. Act 2019 and for that reason even though his filed CC Case No. 56/2019 was initiated, prior to coming into existence of C.P. Act of 2019, as the contents of CC/56/2019 shows, yet the limitation period to file the Appeal against the judgement of said CC/56/2019 run and reached as per scopes of C.P. Act of 1986, should be determined as per time stipulation, fixed for preferring Appeal according to the scopes of C.P. Act of 2019, since C.P. Act of 2019 is prospective one and not to be determined within time stipulation according to the time stipulation fixed for preferring Appeal in a case, as per C.P. Act of 1986, even though that case was filed, heard and concluded as per scopes of C.P. Act of 1986. In fact, the new C.P. Act of 2019 is prospective one in nature and parties whose rights and obligations were settled as per old act in C.P. Act of 1986, cannot make use of the provisions of the new Act i.e. C.P. Act of 2019 that has come into effect on 20.07.2020. The repeal of an act, shall not affect the previous operation of an enactment i.e. proceeding under the C.P. Act of 1986 shall continue for cases which has been filed prior to the implementation of the C.P. Act of 2019 on 20.07.2020.

    The same can be gauged through the repeal and savings section i.e. Sec. 107 of the C.P. Act of 2019. Sec. 6 (b) of the general Clauses Act of 1897 also lends assistance to come to this conclusion, as reflected above.

    Besides unless the legislature explicitly provides that the amendment is retrospective in nature it will be considered prospective. This aforesaid view has been taken by the Apex Court in Prachi Mathur VS TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

    It is needless to reiterate that a statue which not only changes but also creates new rights and balates shall be constructed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication.

    Taking into account the aforesaid discussion, I can conclude that since C.P. Act of 2019 is prospective in nature, the cases pending as per C.P. Act of 1986 will continue to proceed under the Old Act of C.P. Act of 1986. Resultantly, the instant proceeding shall be governed as per C.P. Act of 1986.

    In view of all the discussions reflected above, this is pertinent to hold that this line of thinking, argument and interpretation of law made by the Review Petitioners is not legally correct and allowable as it is not sustainable in the eye of law and specially when the C.P. act of 2019 is prospective one that has come into effect on 20.07.2020 with no retrospective effect.

    I had given anxious consideration to the available materials on record and heard both sides at length. Thereafter, following legal principals and assigning detailed grounds to reach the conclusion and leaving behind no error apparent as I could assess, I had pronounced the order passed in IA/28/2023 dated 27.09.2023 which the Review Petitioner is intending to reprobate by filing this Review Application No. 1 of 2023 dated 01.11.2023.

    In this Review Application, the Review Petitioner has cited judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Shakuntala Devi Jain and others – Appellant VS Kuntal Kumari & Others – Respondents, L/Naik Mahabir singh - Appellant VS Chief of Army Staff – Respondent, and judgement of  the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed in State of W.B. and others – Appellant VS Biswanath Bhattachaya & Others – Respondent to substantiate his contentions that the delay in filing the Appeal, he had preferred (A/20/2023) against the judgement of CC/56/2019, deserves to be condoned, in view of the findings of the limitations so referred by him, pronounced by the Hon’ble Courts of law.

    I have given thorough consideration to those cited references with deep and abiding regards. However, those citations were made while dealing with cases governed by the provisions of C.P. Code of 1908 and limitation Act of 1963 and not by C.P. act of 1986 and 2019 which is a special statue, framed for serving specific purposes and landing no specific scope to condone delay in preferring Appeal in the cases, arising as per scopes of the C.P. Act, except on some exceptional grounds which are specifically and glaringly lacking in the case, filed by the Review Petitioner i.e. in CC/50/2019, A/20/2023. Besides as per C.P. Act of 1986 this commission has not had even any scope to review its own judgement, pronounced in consonance with the scopes of C.P. Act of 1986.

    In this backdrop, there remains no convincing ground to entertain this Review Application and same thus stands rejected on hearing the Review Petitioner Arun Kumar Sau and stands disposed of without being entertained.

    Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

    That the instant Review Application No. 1 of 2023 filed on 01.11.2023 by Arun Kumar Sau stands rejected on hearing and is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be furnished with the Review Petitioner Aurn Kumar Sau, free of cost, forthwith, on observance of all legal formalities framed on this aspect according to the relevant rules and regulations of the C.P. Act.