Judicial Intervention Overturns Delayed Appeal Dismissal, Mandates Comprehensive Reconsideration of Merits and Procedural Fairness

HC set aside appellate authority's order dismissing appeal due to delay. Remanded case for fresh speaking order within eight weeks, directing appellate authority to consider appeal's merits without focusing on limitation. Petitioner granted opportunity for personal hearing and liberty to seek refund of excess amounts collected. Order emphasizes procedural fairness and substantive justice.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of appellate authority based on delay in submission of appeal, lack of detailed reasons in adjudication order, petitioner's claim of being unaware of summary order, impact of Covid-19 on delay, setting aside impugned order and remanding for fresh speaking order.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 28th July, 2022, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to a delay in submission. The adjudication order dated 18th March, 2020, lacked detailed reasons and the petitioner claimed they were not provided with the full text of the order. The petitioner argued they only became aware of the summary order when their bank account was debited on 28th July, 2022. They attributed the delay in filing the appeal to circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic, seeking protection under a Supreme Court order.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Court noted that both the adjudication order and the appellate authority's order were one-line decisions, with the latter dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without delving into the merits. Consequently, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh speaking order on the appeal's merits within eight weeks. The Court emphasized that the new order should not focus on the issue of limitation and should provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Additionally, the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for a refund of any excess amount collected beyond the pre-deposit, with the assurance that such applications would be considered by the relevant authority in accordance with the law. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring due process and giving the petitioner a fair chance to present their case during the disposal of the appeal.

---