T.P. GANESAN Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN C.M.P. No. 6163/92 came on for hearing Counsel on both sides agreed that the original petition itself may be disposed of. Accordingly I am disposing of the original petition. Being aggrieved by an order of adjudication the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent which was delayed by a period of three months and five days. He filed an application for condonation of delay. The affidavit in support of this application is Ext. P14. He has set forth in detail the reasons why the delay occurred. He had entrusted the papers to his Counsel Sri S. Parameswaran for filing the appeal. Counsel had remitted the institution fee of Rs. 200/ - and purchased a demand draft for the amount on 23 -5 -1989. Counsel's office was shifted and in that shifting the papers happened to be misplaced. They were traced out later and the appeal was filed on 21 -10 -1989. It is in these circumstances the delay occurred. But the Tribunal refused to condone the delay by the order Ext. P15 on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

(2.) AFTER having heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abul Hassan, Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied that the delay in this case should have been condoned and the appeal heard on merits. The fact that the appellant has been diligent is clear from the circumstances that the demand draft for institution fee had been purchased on 23 -5 -1989. Petitioner's Counsel Sri S. Parameswaran shifted his office and that appears to have resulted in some confusion and misplacement of papers. The entire blame, if at all, was therefore, on the Counsel's office and as to what happened there. A member of that office has subsequently appeared before the Tribunal also. It will, therefore, be seen that Counsel has taken upon himself the blame if any for the delay in filing the appeal. When the appellant himself has been diligent and the blame if any lies elsewhere, and Counsel himself was prepared to take the blame on him as is evident from the circumstances, the Tribunal should not have rejected the application on the ground of alleged unsatisfactory nature of the explanation of the delay. That is why I think the delay should have been condoned and the appeal heard on merits.

(3.) THE order Ext. P15 is quashed. The first respondent Tribunal is directed to take the Appeal No. G/578/89/MAS on its file for hearing on merits. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending disposal of the appeal the gold seized from the petitioner shall not be minted unless it has already been dealt with otherwise. The original petition is disposed of as above.