BHAJARAM BHUYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the instant writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a question as to whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, while entertaining an application for restoration of the Original Application, can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation even if applications for condonation of delay in filing such restoration applications registered as M.A. No.479 of 2005 and M.A. No.464 of 2005 arising out of O.A. No.262 of 2001 and O.A. No.718 of 2003 respectively had been filed. Though both the Original Applications were taken up together and a common order dismissing both the Original Applications was passed due to default, but the applicant of O.A. No.718 of 2003 only has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, we are concerned at the moment with O.A. No.718 of 2003 and M.A. No.464 of 2005.

(2.) The Tribunal has dismissed the application for restoration of the O.A. holding that 'since the application for condonation of delay was not maintainable, the application for restoration of the O.A. is time barred and delay in filing the same cannot be condoned. Reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on a case law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajayya Bosi v. Union of India reported in 96 (2003) CLT 230, in which it has been held that the Tribunal has no power to entertain the review application if it is filed beyond the time stipulated and the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be pressed into service to decide the extent of review power exercisable by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules.

(3.) We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal as well as the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act and the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987.