Reviving a time-barred administrative appeal despite no delay-condonation power, using Article 226 to order merits rehearing

The dominant issue was whether an appeal dismissed as time-barred could be revived when the appellate authority lacked statutory power to condone delay beyond the extended period. The HC held that the delay was bona fide and unintentional, caused by unavoidable circumstances constituting sufficient cause, and that strict adherence to the statutory limit would defeat substantial justice in the peculiar facts. Invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to secure complete justice, the HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal on limitation and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
2. Exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of reasons for delay in preferring the appeal.
4. Comparison of judgments in similar cases for condonation of delay.
5. Discretion of the Court to condone delay based on circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, confirming an order passed earlier. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation due to delay in filing. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The Court noted the inability of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond a certain period but exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay in this case.

2. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority lacked the power to condone the delay, but the Court could do so under Article 226 to ensure complete justice. The petitioner relied on a judgment by a Division Bench to support this argument. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed lack of due diligence on the petitioner's part for the delay in filing the appeal. They cited a different judgment by a Division Bench to support their contention.

3. The petitioner explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the order not being received promptly by the concerned officer, who was handling multiple GST compliances across various states. The petitioner learned about the order much later when asked for clarification by the Revenue. The Court found the reasons provided by the petitioner valid and sufficient to condone the delay, emphasizing the unintentional nature of the delay and the petitioner's readiness to present a strong case on merits.

4. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from a previous judgment where delay condonation was denied. It highlighted the unique circumstances of this case, justifying the exercise of discretion to condone the delay. The Court set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration without the limitation issue.

5. In the final order, the Court allowed the writ petition, subject to a deposit to the Advocates Welfare Fund. It quashed the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the specific facts of the case and should not be considered a precedent.

---