STATE Vs. MIHIR KANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India were heard analogously as a common question of law is involved in these two applications.

(2.) The writ petitioners before us filed two separate applications for review before the State Administrative Tribunal for review of two differents orders passed by the Tribunal in two separate original applications under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) more than one year after the passing of the original order sought to be reviewed. In one of the matters, such application was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay while in the other, no application for condonation of delay was at all filed.

(3.) The learned Tribunal below proceeded, as if, a period of 30 days is the requisite time within which an application for review must be filed and consequently, dismissed the one, which was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay by holding that sufficient cause was not made out for condonation of the delay of 385 days. As regards the other application, which was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, the learned Tribunal held that the same was liable to be dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation.