TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents do not have any objection if the petitions are heard and decided finally at admission stage. 2.1 In view of the said request by learned advocate for the petitioners and the fair stand by learned AGP and with her consent the petitions are taken up for hearing and final decision however, so as to eliminate any technical objections, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP has waived service of Rule. With consent of learned AGP the petitions are heard and decided finally. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts involved in group of these petitions are similar and common and the respondents are also common. Learned Counsel for petitioner further clarified that the date of the orders impugned in the petitions is also the same and the date of the respective documents in question are also same. The learned AGP confirmed the said submission. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned AGP have advanced common submissions. In this view of the matter, the petitions are decided by common order. 4. The relevant details and the relief prayed for are derived (and considered) from SCA No. 5422 of 2015. 5. The petitioners in SCA No.5422 of 2015 have pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners, without considering the evidence produced by the petitioners, a totally unreasoned nonspeaking order was passed on 16/6/2014 by the respondent number 3. The same was received by the petitioners on 19/6/2014. 3.5 The Petitioners, accordingly met their legal representative with a view to prepare an appeal. The same could only be done in September, since prior there to the petitioners had been traveling. Accordingly after making the statutory deposit of 25% of deficit stamp duty, as provided for under the provisions of section 53 of the act, on 6/9/2014, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 13/9/2014 under the bonafide impression that the last date of limitation period as envisaged under the provisions of the act was 16/9/2014. The said appeal was received by the respondent number 2 on 15/9/2014. 3.7 To the great shock and surprise of the petitioners, the petitioners received the order impugned dated 21/10/2014 rejecting the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that the said appeal was beyond the period of limitation of 90 days since the order impugned, passed by the respondent number 3, was dated 16/6/2014 and the appeal was only received by the respondent number 2 on 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the amount @ 25% of the adjudicated amount, with the office of respondent No. 2, on 6.9.2014 and accordingly the petitioners complied the condition for filing and maintaining the appeals. 7.3 It is further claimed by the petitioners that the amount was deposited on 6.9.2014 and the petitioners bonafide belief that upon complying the condition to deposit the amount the requirement of filing the application in prescribed time limit stands complied. It is also claimed by the petitioners that inspite of such bonafide belief the petitioners, filed (within prescribed limitation) the revision application against the orders in question, on 13.9.2014. 7.4 The respondents have claimed that the said appeals i.e. memo of the appeals were received in the office of respondent No. 2 (i.e. the competent authority) on 15.9.2014. 7.5 The petitioners have claimed that though the revision applications were filed / submitted on 13.9.2014 (and even if the respondents claim is to be believed, then also the condition related to limitation was complied inasmuch as the memo of applications were received in office or the authority on 15.9.2014) the respondents, issued and served the recovery notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder by the petitioners should be taken into account and the respondents are not justified in taking into account the date of the order. 9. The respondents have taken into account the date of the order (passed by respondent No. 3) i.e. 16.6.2014 as the starting point for calculating period of limitation and 15.9.2014 as the date of submission of revision applications. By taking said termini and calculating the period of limitation on the said premise, the respondents concluded that the revision applications were filed on 92nd day i.e. the submission of application was delayed by 2 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. 9.1 It appears that the petitioners opposed the said intimation / order by their letter dated 24.11.2014 and claimed that the revision applications were filed within prescribed time limit and even if the date considered by the respondents i.e. 15.9.2014 is taken into account then also it would be 89th day and that therefore the revision applications cannot be said to have been filed after prescribed period of limitation. The respondent No.2 ignored said submission and dismissed the applications. 10. So as to appreciate the rival contentions it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications 15.9.2014 10.2 Thus, the revision application / appeal was filed / received in the office of the authority before 90 days from the date on which the order was served / communicated to the petitioner. 10.3 In light of the said facts and details learned AGP relied on and emphasized clause (a) of first proviso of sub-section (1) of section 53 which provides, inter alia that ........such application is presented within a period of 90 days from the date of the collector and she claimed that the provision specifically mentions .....from the date of the order . and that therefore the date when the order is passed / signed is the relevant date and it is only the said date which can be taken into account. According to learned AGP in view of such specific provision any other date cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating limitation / delay and for deciding the issue as to whether the application is filed within prescribed period of limitation or not. 11. On examination of section 53 it comes out that the legislature has not conferred to the competent authority power to condone delay. The said aspect is settled by virtue of the decision by full bench in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adult member of the family; or (c) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post with acknowledgment due; or (d) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned. 14.1 The said provision prescribes the manner of service of any notice or order in case of an individual. 15. In light of the said provision it is relevant to mention that the respondents have also not disputed that the office of the first adjudicating authority had dispatched the order (dated 16.6.2014) on 19.6.2014. 16. In this view of the matter the respondents, in any case, cannot attribute knowledge about the decision of the adjudicating authority to the petitioner on any date prior to 19.6.2014 and it cannot be disputed or denied by the respondents that until 19.6.2014 the petitioner did not have any knowledge about the decision of the adjudicating authority and about the order (and its contents) 16.1 When the order is not passed in presence of the noticee / his representative, then the respondents are obliged to demonstrate knowledge about the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which the remedy would be effectively available to the concerned and affected person. 18. In this view of the matter the decision of the authority to take, as relevant date, the date of the order i.e. the date when the order was passed / signed (and not the date on which the order was served or communicated to the concerned person) cannot be sustained. 19. The impugned decision is contrary to the object of the provision and militates against the scheme of the Act and the rules. 19.1 The said view and decision of the authority ignores that for real, practical and actual operation of Section 53 of the Act, relevant factor is knowledge about the order . Therefore the relevant date for finding the answer to the question viz. whether the application (revision) is filed before expiry of prescribed period of limitation (i.e. 90 days) or not, would be the date on which the order is served / communicated to the concerned person. 19.2 The expression .....from the date of the order..... should be construed and interpreted to make the provision under Section 53 of the Act meaningful and effective and not to render it redundant. 19.3 The object of the provision, can be achieved and maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act it becomes apparent that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has, been enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers, as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of their disputes and matters connected therewith. It is with this object in view that Rule 4(10) has also been made. It provides for communication of the order of the District Forum to the parties free of charge in order to avoid the delay as well as to save the parties from the burden of expenses that may be incurred for obtaining the certified copy. If the rule itself enjoins a duty for communicating the order of the District Forum duly signed and dated to the parties free of charge, there will hardly be an occasion for the parties to make an application for obtaining a certified copy thereof. Thus, Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with Rules 4 (10) and 8(3) of the Rules and a combined reading of Section 15 and the Rules reproduced above gives an impression that the purpose, object and intention of these statutory provisions is to protect the interest of the parties before the District Forum by making it oblig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the order is the relevant and material aspect for calculating period of limitation and deciding as to whether the particular application or appeal is filed within prescribed period of limitation or not. 20.2 Consequently, in the cases where the order is passed sometime after the hearing gets concluded and it is not passed or not pronounced in presence of the concerned party or his representative, the concerned party may not be able to file application within 90 days 'from the date of oder' as the concerned party will come to know that any order is passed only when the concerned party is informed the decision of the first adjudicating authority or when copy of the order is served to him. 21. In some case, it may so happen that at first glance, it may appear that an application is filed after expiry of prescribed period and is time barred, however, if correct and just method for calculating period of limitation is adopted or if applicant is allowed to explain the facts and details, then the applicant may be able to explain and establish that the application is not hit by delay. It is true that the authority is not conferred the power to condone delay. However, the said r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange its mind and decide to modify its order. It may be that in some cases, the authority may fell that the ends of justice would be met by demoting the officer concerned rather than dismissing him. An order of dismissal passed by the appropriate authority and kept with itself, cannot be said to take effect unless the officer concerned knows about the said order and it is otherwise communicated to all the parties concerned. If it is held that the mere passing of the order of dismissal has the effect of terminating the services of the officer concerned, various complications may arise. If before receiving the order of dismissal, the officer has exercised his power and jurisdiction to take decisions or do acts within his authority and power, would those acts and decisions be rendered invalid after it is known that an order of dismissal had already been passed against him? Would the officer concerned be entitled to his salary for the period between the date when the order was passed and the date when it was communicated to him? These and other complications would inevitably arise if it is held that the order of dismissal takes effect as soon as it is passed, though it may be communic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des maintainability of revision applications under Section 53 of the Act and dismisses the application at threshold by taking into account the date on which the order is passed and signed and not by considering the date on which the order is communicated to and served to the concerned person and having regard to the fact that such orders are passed at threshold i.e. even without issuing notice and / or without granting opportunity to the applicant to explain relevant details / facts it is necessary to emphasis that it is the date on which the order is communicated and served to the concerned person or brought to his notice which is the relevant date and not the date on which the order is passed and signed by the first adjudicating authority. 23.1 The grievance of the petitioners in these cases is required to be considered and examined in light of above discussed position and the relevant facts and dates. 23.2 It would appropriate to recall, while keeping in focus the above discussed position, that the first adjudicating authority passed the order in question on 16.6.2014. The said order was served to the petitioner on 19.6.2014. The petitioner dispatched the revision applications t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
