Statutory outer limit for condonation under SAFEMA cannot be extended; admitted receipt of order made service defects irrelevant.

Where SAFEMA prescribed a 45-day appeal period with condonation allowed only up to a further 60 days, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to extend limitation beyond that outer ceiling. Appeals filed on the 81st day were therefore time-barred. Admitted receipt and knowledge of the forfeiture order also meant that any alleged irregularity in the mode of service did not affect the limitation issue or justify treating the appeals as within time. The statutory limitation scheme was applied strictly, and the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could condone delay in filing appeals under SAFEMA beyond the statutory outer limit of 60 days. (ii) Whether the alleged irregularity in service of the forfeiture order under Section 22 of SAFEMA affected the limitation plea when the appellants admitted receipt and knowledge of the order.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could condone delay in filing appeals under SAFEMA beyond the statutory outer limit of 60 days.

Analysis: The appeal provision under SAFEMA prescribed a 45-day period for filing an appeal and permitted condonation only up to an additional 60 days on sufficient cause being shown. The appeals were filed on the 81st day after service. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend limitation beyond the statutory ceiling, and the question of sufficient cause could not enlarge that limit.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was right in holding that it had no power to condone delay beyond 60 days, and this finding is against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged irregularity in service of the forfeiture order under Section 22 of SAFEMA affected the limitation plea when the appellants admitted receipt and knowledge of the order.

Analysis: The appellants themselves admitted before the Tribunal that the order had been received around 29/30 July 1998 and that the appeals were filed thereafter. Once actual knowledge and receipt of the order were admitted, any complaint about the precise mode of service lost significance for deciding limitation. The alleged procedural irregularity in service could not by itself invalidate the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.

Conclusion: The alleged defect in service did not assist the appellants, and this issue was decided against them.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were barred by limitation and the statutory limitation scheme under SAFEMA did not permit condonation beyond the prescribed outer limit, so the dismissal of the appeals was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a fixed outer limit for condonation of delay, the appellate authority cannot extend limitation beyond that ceiling, and admitted receipt or knowledge of the order renders alleged defects in service immaterial to the limitation question.

---