RAMJILAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th August 1966, dismissing their appeal under section 77 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as barred by limitation. M. P. No. 216 of 1967 decided on 21-7-1970. N.

(2.) UNDER section 77 (3), the appeal had to be preferred within 30 days of the date on which the order appealed against was communicated to them. The procedure to be followed for presentation of appeals is prescribed in rule 59 of the Rules framed under the Act. Sub-rule (3) thereof directs that every appeal shall state the date of the order appealed against. The appellate authority is required under sub-rule (5) to satisfy itself that the appeal is made within the prescribed time limit. If it finds that the appeal does not conform to the requirements of sub-rule (3), it shall call upon the appellant to remedy the defect. UNDER sub-rule (8), if the appellant fails to remedy the defect, the appellate authority may, if the appeal is not presented within the time limit, dismiss the appeal as time-barred. In cases where it is considered necessary to give a hearing it shall fix a date for hearing, of which due notice shall be given to the appellant.

(3.) HAVING heard the parties, we have formed the opinion that the petition must fail. So far as the first point is concerned, the contention that the Board of Revenue could not decide the question on affidavits, cannot be accepted. Rule 59 (8) only directs that a hearing has to be given. The rule reads as follows: