MAHAVIRA TRADING COMPANY Vs. NAYAN N TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THESE Petitions arise from the common Order passed on 25th January, 1999, by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.36/98 and Miscellaneous Application No.39/98 and involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, were heard and are being disposed of by this common Order.

(3.) SHRI M. S. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the Order submitted that the records do not disclose that the delay was deliberate or intentional, or that the Petitioner was to gain any benefit by resorting to delay in filing the Appeal. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in various matters relating to the condonation of delay, the Tribunal was expected to exhibit justice-oriented approach in the matter in hand which the Tribunal has not only failed to show but has adopted totally wrong approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner. There was no malafide attributable to the Petitioner for approaching late with the appeal. He sought to rely upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst.Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and another vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1981 SC 733 besides Single Judge of Kerala in the matter of Xavier vs. Canara Bank Ltd, reported in K.L.T. 927.