TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was therefore taking up the applications for settlement for further hearing, it was obliged to apply such law. If the proceedings were delayed due to the reasons attributable to the applicants, the provision for abatement would apply but not otherwise. The Settlement Commission has not recorded any such finding. The department has not brought any facts to our notice to permit any further inquiry in this respect by the Settlement Commission. In plain terms therefore there is no material before us to hold that the application for settlement of the present petitioners were belated due to the reasons attributable to the petitioners. The impugned order of the Settlement Commission is set aside. The proceedings are revived - SPECIAL CIVIL APP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Application No.5208 of 2008 and connected petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 16.05.2008. The Court noted that the Supreme Court vide an order dated 31.03.2008 passed in case of Prabhu Dayal vs. Union of India , in Writ Petition (Civil) No.113 of 2008, was seized of identical situation. The Court had passed interim order on 31.03.2008 staying the provisions for abatement of proceedings for settlement of the petitioner therein. The Court noted the readiness of the petitioners to abide by the outcome of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra). The Court therefore disposed of all the writ petitions in following terms: 6. We, therefore, dispose of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the provisions and declared that it is a statutory duty of the Settlement Commission to dispose of an application which is filed before it unless due to any reasons attributable to the applicant, the Settlement Commission has been prevented from fulfilling the said duty and only in such a case the proceedings would abate on the date specified under section 245HA(1)(iv) of the Act. The Court required that the Settlement Commission should consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable to the applicant. If the conclusion is that it was not so, the application for settlement would not abate. We may record that this judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Star Television News Ltd. (supra) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as having abated. It is true that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court on the issue of applicability of the abatement provisions and such petition was disposed of, the petitioners to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra). However, the Supreme Court did not have occasion to decide the case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) on merits. By virtue of interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the said case or for any other reason, it appears that, by the time the Supreme Court took up the case for final hearing, the issues were no longer alive. The petitioner Prabhu Dayal therefore withdrew his case. This disposal of the proceedings before the Supreme Court without expression of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
