DHRUV NARAIN BANSAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by District Judge, Nainital, whereby learned District Judge, Nainital was pleased to condone the delay of more than 13 years in filing the appeal under Section 9 of U.P. Public Premises Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on the application of respondent, herein, learned Prescribed Authority was pleased to issue notices to the petitioners under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, however, ultimately, learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 30.6.1998, was pleased to reject the notices issued under Section 4 of the Act. Thereafter, respondent, herein, on 9.8.2013 filed an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing/rejecting the notices issued against the petitioners under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment.

(3.) MR . Anirudh Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that appeal itself was not maintainable under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, therefore, learned Appellate Court was absolutely not having any jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal, which itself was not maintainable.