Court allows appeal revision emphasizing statutory rights, alternative evidence, and importance of exercising appeal rights

The court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal as belatedly filed. It emphasized the statutory right to file an appeal independently of other remedies, accepted alternative evidence supporting the delay, and clarified that the absence of an affidavit does not automatically invalidate the application for condonation of delay. The court directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal on its merits, highlighting the importance of statutory remedies and the validity of exercising the right to appeal despite the availability of alternative remedies.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal based on advice from counsel, condonation of delay, availability of alternative remedies, necessity of filing affidavit with application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a revision against the Tribunal's order dismissing an appeal as belatedly filed. The applicant's counsel advised initially to file a writ petition challenging the order, leading to a delay of six months and 28 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the contention of being misled without an affidavit to support the claim of bona fide belief. However, a certificate from another counsel advising to file the appeal was submitted along with the application for condonation of delay. The court considered this evidence and allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order.

The counsel for the applicant argued that the right to file an appeal is statutory and can be exercised independently of other remedies like filing a writ petition. The court agreed, stating that the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude the right to file an appeal. It was also noted that the writ petition had not been admitted, and if the appeal is entertained, the writ petition may not be admitted due to the exercise of the right to appeal.

Regarding the requirement of filing an affidavit with the application for condonation of delay, the court clarified that while an affidavit ensures the correctness of averments, the absence of an affidavit does not automatically invalidate the application. In this case, a certificate from the counsel advising to file the appeal was considered as proof, leading the court to conclude that there was no reason to refuse the condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the court allowed the revision, directing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and decide on the merits. The judgment emphasizes the importance of statutory remedies, the validity of exercising the right to appeal despite other available remedies, and the acceptance of alternative forms of evidence in applications for condonation of delay.

---