VITHU Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Advocate Shri Sirpurkar for appellant and Advocate Shri Mehadia for respondent, as I find that the appeal can be disposed of only on the ground of limitation in approaching the Special Tribunal functioning under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 it is not necessary for me to go into the factual matrix. The question which arises therefore is - Whether the application under sec. 14[2] of the above Act, as filed by the present appellant before the Special Tribunal on 03.05.1986 was within limitation or not

(2.) With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the award and the facts relevant for present adjudication are as under. It is not in dispute that the appellant received payment under protest on 09.11.1985 and filed application under sec. 14[2] of the said Act on 03.05.1986. Rule 7[5] of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Rules, 1975 requires him to file application within six weeks of the date of receipt of payment. Proviso thereto permits the Tribunal to condone the delay of 30 days and there is no provision which enables the Tribunal to entertain the application if it is filed after such 30 days. Thus at the most, the application can be filed before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days after expiry of period of six weeks mentioned above with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) In the present matter, there is delay of about 133 days and as the Tribunal is authorised by law to condone delay of only 30 days, the Tribunal cannot condone the delay of 133 days. The Tribunal has discussed this aspect in detail. Advocate Shri Mehadia, has also invited attention to the judgment of this Court reported at Bhauji Ramchandra Lande .vrs. W.C.L., 1997 2 MhLJ 315in which the validity of Rule 7[5] of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Rules, 1975 was in question. This Court has held that framing of Rules and thereby providing for such limitation is not ultra vires and thus the validity of the proviso has been upheld.