Condonation of delay in Tribunal review applications is available where the special limitation rule does not expressly exclude Section 5.

The Central Administrative Tribunal may condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a review application filed beyond the thirty-day period in Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 gives the Tribunal review power and civil-court powers necessary for its functions, while Rule 17(1) fixes a special limitation period without expressly excluding Section 5. Applying Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Sections 4 to 24 remain applicable to a special limitation regime unless expressly excluded, so the Tribunal can entertain delay condonation on sufficient cause.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a review application filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed by Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Analysis: Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers on the Tribunal the power to review its decisions and the same powers as a civil court in matters necessary for discharging its functions. Rule 17(1) prescribes a special period of limitation for review, but neither that Rule nor Section 22 contains any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, where a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply unless expressly excluded. Applying this principle, the Tribunal is competent to entertain an application for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.

Conclusion: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a delayed review application under Rule 17(1), and the contrary view was held to be incorrect.

---