2016 (9) TMI 1669 - HC - Indian Laws

Recall application beyond limitation period requires delay condonation under Section 5 before deciding merits

Sunil Kumar Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

The HC held that a recall application filed beyond the limitation period cannot be decided on merits unless delay is first condoned under Section 5 of the ... Maintainability of a recall application - Condonation of delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 - applicant has not argued the case - recall could not be sought and in absence of such assertion - Power of review. Condonation of delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 - HELD THAT:- There are substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as once the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed, the restoration application could not be decided on merit unless the delay was condoned and the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed or the finding was recorded to the effect that there was no need of filing Section 5 application and the application was within time - Here in this case, admittedly, the recall application was barred by time and it was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, therefore, unless the delay was condoned, the recall application could not have been decided. In the case of SNEH GUPTA VERSUS DEVI SARUP & OTHERS [2009 (2) TMI 744 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that in absence of any application for condonation of delay, the court has no jurisdiction in terms of S. 3, Limitation Act, 1963 to entertain the application filed for setting aside of decree after expiry of period of limitation. Power of review - HELD THAT:- The power of review of quasi judicial authority in absence of specific provision under the statute has been dealt with in several cases of this Court as well as by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P. and Ors., [1987 (9) TMI 302 - SUPREME COURT] has held that unless power of Review is expressly conferred on the authority by any statute under which it derives its' jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no power to Review its' earlier order. It is well settled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and no legal consequences can flow such orders - petition allowed. Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the maintainability of a recall application, the requirement of condonation of delay, and the authority of a quasi-judicial body to review its own order.Recall Application and Condonation of Delay: The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Hapur, which set aside an earlier order and fixed a date for hearing and evidence. The petitioner argued that the recall application was not maintainable as the order was not ex parte, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed without being disposed of. The State respondents filed the recall application on the grounds of being unaware of the earlier order. The court found that the recall application was time-barred and required condonation of delay before being decided.Quasi-Judicial Authority's Review Power: The court emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its order without specific statutory provisions allowing for such a review. Citing various legal precedents, including the Apex Court's decisions, the court reiterated that a quasi-judicial body lacks the power to review its order in the absence of statutory provisions. The court held that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction and was declared a nullity, emphasizing that orders without jurisdiction have no legal consequences.Conclusion: Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Hapur, emphasizing that orders without jurisdiction are null and void. The court allowed the writ petition, but noted that this decision did not prevent the respondents from proceeding in accordance with the law.