M JAGDEESWARA RAO Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal for setting aside order dated 27. 02. 2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Review W. P. M. P. (SR)No. 8223 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellants for review of order dated 16. 06. 2005 passed in Writ petition No. 12594 of 2005 on the ground that the review petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the writ petition filed by them, the appellants prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to renew their licences for running saw mills. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 16. 6. 2005 by observing that there was no evidence to show that the petitioners had applied for renewal of their licences which had expired in December 2001. The learned Single Judge also observed that mere payment of certain lump sum amount in the name of licence fee without making applications for that purpose within the time specified in the Andhra pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 does not obligate the respondents to renew the licence of the writ petitioners.

(2.) SHRI P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the Full bench judgments of this Court, Punjab and haryana and Gujarat High Courts in Badruka college of Commerce and Arts v. State of andhra Pradesh, Ram Kala v. The assistant Director, Consolidation of holdings and Gujarat University v. Miss sonal P. Shah respectively and argued that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act, 1963 do not, in terms, apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and an application filed for review of an order passed by the high Court in exercise of power under Article 226 cannot be dismissed on the ground of the bar of limitation. Learned counsel emphasized that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing writ petition under article 228 of the Constitution of India or 3 petition for review of an order passed under article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, the petition for review filed by the petitioners could not have been dismissed by invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader for forests submitted that the appellants had not urged before the learned Single Judge that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, they are estopped from questioning the order under challenge on the ground of non-applicability of the provisions of the limitation Act, moreso because they themselves had filed W. P. MP. No. 1899 of 2006 for condonation of 214 days delay.