TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this petition is not necessary. 2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made serious complaint while challenging the impugned order and contended that the said order has been passed by the CEGAT after more than two years from the date of hearing of the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appeals filed by the petitioner were heard on 19th April, 2001 and the appeals were closed for orders and reserved for judgment. The order came to be passed on 6th May, 2003. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 13th June, 2003. 3.According to the petitioner, the passage of time of almost more than two years has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the CEGAT has forgotten to consider, discuss, examine and deal with vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, exhibits complete non-application of mind on the part of the CEGAT. In the submission of the petitioner, all this has happened because of delayed delivery of judgment on the part of the CEGAT. 6.The inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the judgment or order is alleged to have actually negatived the right of appeal conferred by the Statute. Any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. 7.It has been held time and again that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, Justice withheld is even worse than that. The Apex Court in the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to consider the serious issue of delayed delivery of judgment by some of the High Courts and had occasion to lay down certain guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgments by the High Courts. The similar guidelines can conveniently be laid down for the CEGAT so as to prevent delayed delivery of the judgments which at the end of the day results in denial of justice as happened in the instant case. 10.We, therefore, direct the President of the CEGAT to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the CEGAT in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
