REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

G.NARASIMHA MURTHY Appellant

V/S

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MAHABUBNAGAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ST. JOHNS TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE V. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA TRANSPORT REP. BY SHRI D.P. SHARMA V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]
J K COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. SHYAM SUNDER JHUNJHUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SABHA ANGLO AMERICAN DIRECT TEA TRADING CO LIMITED VS. HIND CYCLES LTD [REFERRED TO]
INDO CHINA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED INDO CHINA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED VS. JASJIT SINGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. P N SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SMAYUKTA SOCIALIST PARTY VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ ALI P KAKKAN VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI:CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL VS. B N BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KANTI DUTTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL NARAYANDAS GOVINDDAS SHA MOTEEJEE VIRCHANDJI PRAVINCHANDRA KESHAVLAL M V MANJUNATH APPASAHEB BHARAMAPPA VANKUNDRE BASUDEO PRASAD BHAGWAN DAS G VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
J B CHOPRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT VS. DEAN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AURANGABAD [REFERRED TO]
MUKRI GOPALAN VS. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K AJIT BABU VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HASHMATULLAH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRAT ADHYAKSHA ZILA PARISHAD BASTI [REFERRED TO]
KUNJ BEHARI LAL BUTAIL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K THIMMAPPA VS. CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BD OF DIRS SBI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B SUVARNA MALINI [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH MEHTA VS. SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED TO]
MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. CHAIRMAN BIHAR LEGIS COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
SAKINALA HARINATH VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
G NARASIMHA RAO VS. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION GOVT OF A P VS. RAMA PRABHAKARA [REFERRED TO]
GURRAM SATYASESHAAMBA VS. GURRAM KRISHNAVENAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MULCHAND GULABCHAND VS. MUKUND SHIVRAM BHIDE [REFERRED TO]
P V MANI VS. MANI V UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of the power of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.A.T.') to condone the delay beyond the period specified under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for the purpose of convenience) beyond the period of 30 days specified had been referred to the Full Bench in the light of the decision of yet another Full Bench in G. Narsimha Rao v. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and others, 2005 (2) ALT 469 (FB), wherein it was held that A.P.A.T. has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review application in the light of the language of Rule 19 of the Rules.

(2.) Several writ petitions are being filed as against the orders of A.P.A.T. wherein the applications moved beyond time under Rule 17 are being dismissed on the ground that A.P.A.T. has no power to condone delay beyond the specified period.

(3.) Sri Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing certain writ petitioners would maintain that the language employed in Rule 19 is different from the language in Rule 17 of the Rules. The learned Counsel also would contend that in case of review application, the matter would be within the knowledge of the concerned Counsel, whereas in case of default orders, such orders may or may not be within the knowledge of the concerned Counsel of the party, as the case may be, and hence, inasmuch as there is no specific or express exclusion on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 under Rule 17 of the Rules, an application to condone delay can be definitely maintained. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions in relation to the powers of the Tribunal to dismiss for default which would have the power to restore also by implication. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Click here to view full judgment.

G NARSIMHA MURTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLETORMAHABUBNAGAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address