Naresh Kumar vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in OA 879/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner''s said OA was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority which had confirmed the order of dismissal dated 20.06.2003. The petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 07.03.2008 by filing an Original Application being OA 1397/2010 on 22.02.2010 which was 23 months after the date of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on 07.03.2008. That OA was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13.01.2011 with liberty to file a better OA. It is thereafter that the said OA 879/2011 was filed on 28.02.2011 which had been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.01.2012 on the ground of limitation. Even if we do not count the gap between the withdrawal of the first OA and the filing of the OA No. 879/2011 and construe it to be as if OA was filed on 22.02.2010, there is yet a period of 23 months between the date of the appellate authority''s order dated 07.03.2008 and the filing of the said OA. The OA ought to have been filed within 12 months as prescribed u/s 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In other words, it should have been filed by 06.03.2009. However, it was filed further 11 months later on 22.02.2010.

In the first application, that is, OA 1397/2010, there was a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay. However, in the subsequent OA, that is, OA 879/2011, there is no application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner has also not filed a copy of the initially Original Application, that is, OA 1397/2010. However, the learned counsel was carrying a copy of the same, which was shown to us. In that Original Application we found that there were two miscellaneous applications - one for condonation of delay and the other for condonation of delay in re-filing of the OA. Insofar as the condonation of delay application is concerned, there appeared to be some purported grounds taken so as to explain as to why he had sufficient cause for not approaching the Tribunal in time. However, they are not supported by any medical certificates etc.

We may also point out that in the second round, that is, when the OA 879/2011 was filed, it was not accompanied by any condonation of delay application. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was under the impression that since he had been given the liberty to file a better OA, the delay had been condoned. Unfortunately, there is no such order of the Tribunal which would indicate that the delay had been condoned. Since there was no application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal, in the second round, had no material before it which would enable it to examine as to whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for the delay or not. In the absence of any condonation of delay application, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the OA 879/2011 as being barred by limitation inasmuch as there was a clear-cut delay of 11 months.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan, However, there is an observation in that decision itself to the effect that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condoning delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing in the case to show that the error committed by the counsel was tainted by any mala fide motive.

In the absence of any application for condonation of delay and in the absence of any material to show that there was indeed a mistake committed by the counsel or that such a mistake was, in fact, bona fide, we do not see as to how this decision of the Supreme Court would come to the aid of the petitioner. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner''s OA on the ground of limitation. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.