High Court sets aside order, remits matter for fresh decision, no view on merits.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the original order or the petitioner's claims, leaving it to the first respondent to decide.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdictional confusion leading to delay in filing appeal before the appropriate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeal by the first respondent due to filing beyond the prescribed period. The Order-in-Original informed the petitioner of the appeal jurisdiction, which changed due to bifurcation. The petitioner claimed confusion and filed the appeal late. The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection and requested condonation of the delay.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the Chennai Appellate Authority did not acknowledge receiving the appeal papers, there was no proof of timely filing. On the contrary, the respondents' counsel argued that the appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred without evidence of timely filing before the Chennai Appellate Authority.

The High Court found justifiable reasons to believe that the petitioner intended to approach the Chennai Appellate Authority in time but filed with a delay before the first respondent. The rejection was solely based on the delay without considering the merits. The Court held that the petitioner's statutory right of appeal should not be denied due to a minor delay of 25 days. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for consideration on merits within eight weeks.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the original order or the petitioner's claims, leaving it to the first respondent to decide.

---