Per Mr.S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard both sides on delay condonation application.
(1) As per the application for condonation of delay there is in filing the appeal and hence, this application. Applicant/Appellant alleged 97 days of delay. It sought to be explained stating that after getting the certified copy on 30.07.2012 the Investigator came to be appointed whose report was received on 07.08.2012 and thereafter, a decision was taken to file the appeal on 23.08.2012 and thereafter this appeal is filed. As per the record, the appeal is filed on 27.11.2012.
(2) This application is opposed by the Non-Applicant/Respondent stating that free copy supplied by the Forum of the impugned order was received by the Applicant/Appellant on 10.07.2012 as per the rubber stamp of the Applicant/Appellant endorsed on the copy filed on record. This appeal ought to have been filed on or before 10.08.2012 and, thus, there is delay of 109 days, which is not explained. The reason mentioned is neither convincing nor sufficient and thus asked for dismissal of the application.
(3) From the certified copy of the impugned order produced on record along with the application for condonation of delay, it appears that impugned order which was passed on 11.06.2012 was dispatched to the Applicant/Appellant on its correct address on 21.06.2012 and was duly received by it on 10.07.2012 as per the rubber stamp of the receipt appearing on the said order. Thus, the statement that the copy was made available to the Applicant/Appellant on 30.07.2012 is, per se, incorrect statement. Thus, there is delay of not 97 days but 109 days and which obviously is not explained.
(4) Another aspect is that application for condonation of delay which is verified by Smt.Melita Lobo, Administrative Officer of the Applicant/Appellant is dated 6th May, 2012. However, the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application along with appeal is concerned is dated 06.11.2012 and thereafter, the appeal along with condonation of delay application was presented on 27.11.2012. Thus, the delay caused as appeared from this particular eventuality is not at all satisfactorily explained for the entire duration. There is no reason to withhold the appeal, when the application was ready along with affidavit on 6th November, 2012, to file the same belatedly on 27.11.2012.
(5) Once the copy was received on 10.07.2012, we fail to appreciate the reason to appoint investigator and then to await its report before taking any decision to file appeal which according to Applicant/Appellant was taken on 23.08.2012. Once the decision was taken, again delay occurred of more than 34 days which is not explained. There is no reason to wait to appoint and wait for report of investigator to decide to file the appeal. Thus, the reason offered to condone the delay cannot be accepted as satisfactory reason.
(6) Further more the Applicant/Appellant also failed to establish its bonafides and further failed to explain and show the steps taken by it to avoid actual delay. A useful reference can be made to a decision of National Commission in the matter Citi Bank N.A. V/s. Ghaty Chhaya Padmini [2012 (4) CPR 496 (NC)] and which referes to the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Ansul Aggarwal V/s. New Okha Industrial Development Authority, (IV) 2011 CPJ 63 (SC). Therefore, we find that the Applicant/Appellant failed to explain delay satisfactorily. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Misc.application for condonation of delay stands rejected.
In the result, appeal does not survive for consideration.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 29th January, 2013.
ep
