UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAYAPUDI ANNAPURNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have been filed to condone the delay of 629, 627, 620 and 620 days respectively, in preferring these appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad on 10.03.2017 in O.A.A. No.67 of 2010, O.A.(IIU) no.195 of 2010, O.A. No.(II U) No.210 of 2015 and O.A. No.(ii) (u) 161 of 2014.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of these applications, it is contended that the Tribunal had passed common order in these four cases and several other cases on 10.03.2017; that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as awarded by the said Tribunal, since without applying it s mind to the facts of each case, judgment was delivered; that C.M.A. No.524 of 2017 and 534 of 2017, against two of the orders passed by the said Tribunal, were filed in this Court; but due to circumstances beyond control of the appellant no stay orders could be obtained in the said matters.

(3.) It is contended that at that point of time, the appellant was advised that in cases of this nature, Writ Petitions can be filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India questioning the common order on the ground of violation of procedure and principles of natural justice; so the appellant then filed W.P. No.17478 of 2018 and batch in this Court and obtained orders of stay initially, but later, all the Writ Petitions were dismissed on 17.09.2018 holding that there was an effective alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Act; insofar as the orders impugned in these O.As. are concerned, W.P. Nos.17809, 17485, 17529 and 17523 of 2018 were filed which were part of the batch which were dismissed on 17.09.2018 by the Single bench; that one Writ Appeal was filed by the appellant, questioning orders passed in one of the Writ Petitions, which was dismissed along with the batch, and the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed on 21.01.2018; and thereafter, the appellant obtained advise, placed the matter before the Railway Board and then filed the instant appeals. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeals is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons.