UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.2276/1996, 302/1996, 303/1996 and 260/1995 were filed challenging the order dated 28th November, 1994 passed under Sections 7(1) and 7(3) of Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), by the Competent Authority, the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 8th March, 1996 and the rectification order dated 8th May, 1996. The writ petitions were allowed vide common order dated 25th November, 2011. LPA No.531/2012, 532/2012, 534/2012 and 540/2012 have been filed questioning the order passed in the writ petitions. Since the appeals have been filed after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, the aforesaid applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 139 days in filing the appeals.

(2.) PURSUANT to our order dated February 22, 2013, the appellants have filed a better affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeals and the delay is sought to be explained in paras 2 to 19 of the said affidavit.

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the applications would show that copy of the impugned order was received by the concerned department after about four weeks, on 23rd December, 2011. Since, any decision whether to accept the order passed by the learned Single Judge or to challenge it by way of appeal could have been taken only after a detailed analysis of the said order with the help of the relevant files maintained in the concerned departments/Sections, the appellants cannot be blamed for not initiating any action in the matter prior to 23rd December, 2011. Since 24th December, 2011 and 25th December, 2011 were holidays, the order in question was received by the concerned dealing officer on 26th December, 2011 and the file reached the Competent Authority through proper channel, on 4th January, 2012. Considering that the dealing officer could not have put up the file directly to the Competent Authority and was, required to route the same through his superior, it cannot be said that the appellants were inactive in taking any action in the matter between 26th November, 2011 to 4th December, 2012. Immediately on the file being seen by the Competent Authority, a legal opinion from the counsel who represented the appellants in the writ petitions was sought vide letter dated 5th January, 2012. The appellants were justified in seeking legal opinion before deciding whether to accept the impugned order or to challenge it by way of appeal. The counsel also took some time to give opinion sought by the Department, which was received on 19th January, 2012. In the meanwhile, there was change of Competent Authority and the previous Competent Authoirty Smt. Renu Jauhri was replaced by Smt. Pragya S.Saxena. The opinion received from the counsel was placed before the new Competent Authority on 18 th January, 2012. The said opinion was received by the dealing officer on 27th January, 2012, on account of intervening holidays on 21 st, 22nd and 26th Januay, 2012. Since the office of the concerned department remained closed on 21st January, 2012 and 29th January, 2012, the approval to file appeal was sent to the counsel on 30th January, 2012. Thus, within about one month and one week of receipt of the impugned order, the concerned department had, obtained legal opinion from the counsel and taken a decision to file the appeals. Upto this stage, we do not find any laxity or inaction on the part of the appellants in processing the matter.