VARUN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been made challenging order dated 24th July, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), not on merits but only with regard to delay, holding that in the absence of application for condonation of delay, nothing can be adhered to on merits. So far as this part is concerned, we have gone through the provisions of Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short the Act). Section 21 directly deals with limitation. Sub-section (1) (a) gives time to make application before the tribunal within one year from the date on which final order has been made. Subsection (1) (b) gives time to make such application within one year after the expiry of six months from the date of filing of appeal or representation made under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20. We quote hereunder all the relevant Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act for all practical purposes.

(2.) WE have also checked up the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) and find that the format under Rule 4, prescribed that the applicant will declare that the application is within the period of limitation as per Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, the application is to be made coupled with a separate application for condonation of delay for the purpose of hearing by the tribunal. WE also find that as per Rule 8 (4) of the Rules, the applicant who seeks condonation of delay, shall file a separate application supported by an affidavit, therefore, the Rule is very clear to that extent.

(3.) THEREFORE, the tribunal is not an usual statutory tribunal but the jurisdiction of Writ Court is curtailed and given to the tribunal. Thus, undoubtedly the tribunal hears such matters as a court of first instance i.e. like learned single Judge exercising writ jurisdiction of the High Court and its decisions are of course, subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in respect of exercise of such jurisdiction for adjudicating questions of natural justice, the appropriate word, according to us, should be 'laches' in the place and instead of 'delay'. The word 'limitation', therefore, is uncalled for. Copy of such observation and/or order will be communicated to learned Addl. Solicitor General of India to inform the government in this regard. However, presently we have to go by the existing law.