W B S E B Vs. MALATI SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is first taken up for hearing and disposal. We have noticed that there is a delay of 39 days in preferring the appeal after receiving the impugned interim order of the Forum below. Heard argument advanced by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant in the condonation petition that the impugned judgment was passed on 31.5.2004, and copy of the same was ready and issued on 9.6.2004. It is stated in the condonation petition that after obtaining the certified copy of the order the Local Supply Office of the appellant collected all necessary papers and relevant documents and also discussed the issue as to whether the appeal would be preferred or not. It took 6 days for coming to a final decision. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Divisional Office, where by taking 15 days the issues were seriously discussed amongst the responsible officers. Then the file was referred to the Corporate Legal as well the legal advisor, who took 14 days for perusing the necessary records and preparing the note sheet. Thereafter the concerned Advocate who took 3 days' time in preferring the appeal before the Commission. The appeal was filed on 16.7.2004. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the delay was not intentional and if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted the appellant will be irreparably prejudiced, not being able to challenge the impugned judgment.

(2.) The authorised representative of the respondent appears but does not raise any objection against the petition for condonation of delay.

(3.) In this context we may refer to the settled principle in respect of condonation of delay (Vide the decision reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353) namely that the Court should not adopt a pedantic attitude towards the condonation of delay and refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. Moreover as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 9 SCC 593, where it has held that the statutory period of limitation i. e. , 30 days need not be explained.