LALIT MOHAN MEHER Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur (in short, 'RDC') in an appeal relating to cancellation of caste certificate issued to petitioner is subject -matter of challenge. The dispute has a long chequered career.

(2.) CASTE certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 (in short the 'Rules') was cancelled by the Collector, Bolangir (opposite party No. 2) by order dated 20.5.1991. Said order was challenged before the RDC in Appeal No. 4 of 19.91. By order dated 24.4.1992, order of the Collector was set aside primarily on the ground that principles of natural justice had not been followed. The matter was remanded to the Collector for a fresh adjudication. The Collector, Bolangir by order dated 14.5.1993 again reiterated the conclusions justifying cancellation of the certificate issued. The matter was again carried in appeal before the RDC in Appeal No. 1 of 1993. By order dated 9.2.1994 the matter was remitted back to the Collector for fresh, adjudication. The Collector for the third time upheld the order passed by his predecessor cancelling the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner does not belong to 'Kuli' caste which is covered -by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (in short, 'the Order'). Petitioner filed Appeal (Misc.) No. 3 of 1995 before the RDC. By the impugned order the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The delay in presentation of appeal was considered to be abnormal, and the appeal was dismissed. It is to be noted that the impugned order of the Collector is dated 25.8.1995, and the appeal which ought to have been filed by 5.10.1995, was in fact filed on 10.10.1995 and therefore, there was delay of five days in preferring the appeal. The certified copy was collected on 29.9.1995 by post by the appellant, who was residing at Bhubaneswar.

(3.) QUESTION of limitation is in the realm of adjective law. It has its own significance, but it cannot be permitted to function as a pivotal point. It cannot be regarded as a factor having paramount importance in the process of adjudication. It has been emphasised by the Apex Court on many occasions that liberal approach has to be taken while dealing with the question of limitation. The expression 'sufficient cause' as appearing in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, 'the Act') is sufficiently elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice which is heartbeat of judicial process. Limitation is a matter of technicality. Unless it is shown that the party acted with any ulterior motive aimed at defeating the ends of justice or is manifest with evil designs that should not stand on the way of adjudication on merits.