1982 (3) TMI 273 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of Delay Granted in Appeal Proceedings under Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act

The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing for the condonation of delay, applied to the appeal proceedings before the Director ... - Issues Involved:1. Period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 27(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.2. Authority of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance to condone the delay in preferring an appeal.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Period of Limitation for Filing an AppealThe primary issue raised in the petition is the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance under Section 27(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. The petitioner had applied for a licence as a General Commission Agent for the year 1980-81, which was refused by the Market Committee on 25th April 1981. This decision was communicated to the petitioner on 8th May 1981. Under Section 27(5), the petitioner had 30 days from the date of communication to file an appeal, which would have expired on 7th June 1981.Issue 2: Authority to Condon the DelayThe petitioner initially filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 13th July 1981, with the Court allowing the petitioner two additional weeks to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner then filed an appeal on 21st July 1981. The Market Committee objected, claiming the appeal was time-barred. The Director initially held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applied, allowing for the condonation of delay. However, the Director ultimately dismissed the appeal as time-barred, stating no sufficient cause for condoning the delay was shown.Court's Analysis:Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation ActThe Court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could apply to the proceedings before the Director. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that if a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply unless expressly excluded. The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, is a special law providing a 30-day limitation period for appeals under Section 27(5). Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, applies to these proceedings.Judicial Precedents and InterpretationThe Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, which held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under any Act to a Civil Court. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the Supreme Court was not addressing the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to statutory authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions.The Court also cited a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before statutory authorities under special laws via Section 29(2). This precedent supported the view that the Director had the authority to condone the delay.Merits of Condoning the DelayThe Court found that the petitioner had actively pursued his grievance against the Market Committee's order. The petitioner had initially approached the High Court within the limitation period and filed the appeal before the Director promptly after the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Given these circumstances, the Court held that the Director should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on its merits.Conclusion:The Court quashed the Director's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred and directed the Director to restore the appeal and decide it on merits. The Court emphasized the need for the Director to consider all relevant facts and exercise judicial discretion properly. The appeal was to be decided expeditiously within six weeks from the receipt of the Court's writ. The petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus directing the Market Committee to grant the licence was not considered at this stage.