Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1434 - HC - Indian LawsDismissal of revision application - Sale deed executed in March 2000 and the notice issued by respondent No. 3 in October 2003 - revision applications are not entertained and are rejected because the said applications have been filed after prescribed period of limitation expired (i.e. after 90 days) - HELD THAT:- A provision conferring statutory right and thereby providing a remedy against the order by adjudicating authority, either in form of appeal or revision application, should be construed to make the remedy effective and meaningful and cannot be interpreted and enforced in a manner which will curtail the scope of remedy and may virtually render it ornamental or truncated than what the legislature actually provided for. When the person is not even aware that some decision is taken and order is passed and / or when the person is not aware about the actual decision i.e. contents of the order, he cannot effectively and meaningfully avail the remedy provided under the Act. Unless the person has the knowledge about the order the provisions / remedy will be meaningless. Therefore, the said provision i.e. Section 53 of the Act and more particularly the expression “from the date of the order” must be construed to make the provision and the remedy effective and meaningful and not in a manner which would restrict the period of said remedy's availability i.e. the period for which the remedy would be effectively available to the concerned and affected person. An order to become effective and operational, the order and decision should be informed to the concerned person and he should be aware about the decision of the authority and also about the direction. As observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Amar Singh Harika [1966 (1) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT] an authority may pass and sign an order and such order may be retained on file without communicating and forwarding it to the concerned person. The knowledge that an order is passed as well as knowledge about the actual decision and effect of the decision are imperative for calculating and enforcing the limitation prescribed (for filing application under Section 53 of the Act) by the Act. The petitioner dispatched the revision applications to the competent authority on 10.9.2014 which was received (according to the claim by the respondents) in the office of the respondents on 15.9.2014 and the petitioner deposited 25% of adjudicated amount on 6.9.2014. Thus, the amount required to be deposited in light of clause-B of sub-section (1) of Section 15 was deposited by the petitioners even before the memo of applications were received in the office of revisional authority - In this view of the matter the period of limitation i.e. period of 90 days should have been calculated w.e.f. 19.6.2014. The revisional authority has committed error in considering the revision applications filed by the petitioners as bared by limitation prescribed under the Act inasmuch as calculating the period on from 1st terminus to 2nd terminus i.e. from 19.6.2014 to 15.9.2014 it becomes clear that the revision applications are undisputedly filed before expiry of 90th day and that therefore the revision applications filed by the petitioners could not have been treated as barred by period of limitation prescribed under the Act and consequently the applications could not have been dismissed. The impugned orders deserve to be and are accordingly hereby set aside and the matters are remitted to the revisional authority for considering the revision applications on merits - Petition disposed off.
|