KRISHNA KANTI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SHRAWASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question of law is involved in this writ petition and the same is as to whether or not delay in filing revision under Sub -section (6) of Section 12C of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947), can be condoned under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963).

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under :

(3.) SRI U. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that like, Representation of the Peoples Act. 1951. Act of 1947, is also a self -contained Code and the provisions of the Act of 1963, cannot be made applicable to the proceedings thereunder, except to the extent the Act of 1947 or the rules framed thereunder make the same applicable. He submits that Sub -section (2) of Section 29 of the Act of 1963 is not attracted to the proceedings under Section 12C (1) or (6) of the Act of 1947. To support his arguments. Sri Srivastava has referred to Sakru v. Tanaji : 1985(22)ELT327(SC) , Anwari Baswaraj Patil and Ors. v. Seddaramaiah and Ors., : [1993]1SCR313 and Ansar Ahmad v. Sub -Divisional Officer. Kairana and Ors., 1998 (3) AWC 18O7 : 1998 RD 500. His second contention is that even if it is accepted for a moment that the period, consumed in prosecuting the Writ Petition No. 915 of 2001 was to be excluded, in view of the concession granted by this Court in its order of 24.4.2001 the revision filed on 18.8.2001 was highly time -barred and the delay, caused after 24.4.2001 could not have been condoned under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. His third submission is that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the provisions contained under Sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963, were applicable, by virtue of Sub -section (2) of Section 29 of the Act of 1963 to the filing of application under Section 12C (6), there were, no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, because the opposite party No. 2, was not diligent and prompt in prosecuting one remedy or the other. According to him, the order dated 22.9.2001 by which the learned District Judge has condoned the delay, being contrary to law and totally unjustified one deserves to be quashed.