SHAIK KHADER BASHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Cr.No.1890/2011/CPE/D4, dated 31-05-2011, of respondent No.1, whereby he has rejected the petitioners appeal as time barred.

(2.) THE petitioner sent an appeal through registered post against Order, dated 05-01-2011, passed by respondent No.2, confiscating his APE truck. THE office of respondent No.1 has received the said appeal on 08-03-2011. By the impugned proceedings, the said appeal was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period of 60 days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) IN my opinion, this aspect is no longer res integra. While dealing with Section 35-E (3) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the Supreme Court has held that, where an authority is authorized to exercise a power or do an act affecting the rights of parties, he shall exercise that power within the period of limitation prescribed therefor. It was further held that the order or decision of such authority comes into force or becomes operative or becomes an effective order or decision on and from the date when it was signed by him. IN contrast, the Supreme Court held that where a party is affected by the order or decision for seeking his remedies against the same, he should be made aware of passing of such an order and that therefore, the Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy, the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to him and not the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances; that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains; that the knowledge of the party affected by such a decision either actual or constructive is thus an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision is said to have been concluded or binding on him. (see Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. M/s.M.M.Rubber and Co., Tamilnadu (AIR 1991 SC 2141)).