BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED MYSORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is preferred against the order dated 3-2-1993 passed by the learned single judge in writ petition No. 21339 of 1989 on the interlocutory application filed by the respondents for extension of time. The learned single judge has allowed the application and extended the time by another two weeks from the date of the order. The order of the learned single judge reads thus: "this court had passed an order on 13-12-1990 setting aside the order made by the collector and remanded the matter to him to make fresh order in accordance with law with certain directions as to the proceedings within a period three months from 13-12-1990. Inasmuch as the respondent could not make such an order within that time, another application was made for extension of time and that application was allowed. It is now submitted that as the respondent could not have passed an order within that period also for the reasons set out in la. No. I and in the affidavit in support of the la, two weeks time is prayed for. The time shall stand extended by another two weeks from today. La. I is disposed of accordingly.

(2.) the contention of Shri chander kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 13-12-1990 passed in writ petition No. 21339 of 1989, the collector ceased to have jurisdiction to adjudicate as he was granted time by this court to adjudicate within three months from the date of receipt of the orders. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to extend time for passing an order de novo; because on the expiry of three months a right was accrued to the appellants to seek refund of the amount of Rs. 28,52,556/- which was paid under protest before the order of adjudication was passed, and the same was set aside in the writ petition No. 21339 of 1989; that by reason of extension of time for passing the Order, the right to seek refund of the said amount has been affected and it has rendered infructuous the writ petition No. 356 of 1993 filed by the appellants on 6-1-1993 for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to refund the aforesaid amount and in which the Rule has been issued. It is also further contended that the order under appeal amounts to review of the order dated 15-12-1992, as by the order dated 15-12-1992 a similar application was dismissed. Therefore, it is contended that there are no grounds for review; hence the learned single judge has acted in excess of the jurisdiction in extending the time.

(3.) on the contrary, it is contended by the learned senior standing counsel for the central government that the extension of time for adjudication does not amount to review of the earlier order; it is an order passed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court in aid of justice; and therefore there is no question of review as the original order passed on 13th december, 1990 stands undisturbed. It is also further contended that the appeal has become infructuous because pursuant to the order dated 3-2-1993 the collector has passed an order of adjudication on 5-2-1993 and it has also been served upon the appellants. A copy of the order passed on 5-2-1993 was also produced before us. When a copy of the order was produced before us, we specifically asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as to whether he would like to reserve the right to urge the contentions raised in the appeal instead of seeking decision at the hands of this court. Learned counsel submitted that the contentions may be decided. Therefore, we now proceed to examine the correctness of the contentions urged before us.