Tribunal grants relief, condones delay in appeals due to pursuing writ remedy, excludes time from limitation period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to pursuing a writ remedy in High Court, excluding the time spent in writ proceedings from the limitation period. Despite disagreement on the exclusion of time for computing limitation, both Tribunal Members agreed that the delay was justified, citing previous cases where pursuing a writ remedy was considered sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal granted relief to the appellants based on established legal principles and precedents, allowing the petitions and scheduling the stay petitions for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, condonation of delay, violation of principles of natural justice, alternative remedy by way of appeal, exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings for computing limitation period.

Analysis:
The appellants filed applications seeking condonation of delay in presenting appeals before the Tribunal, citing violation of natural justice in the impugned order. The High Court had granted interim stay of the order and directed the appellants to file appeals within two months from a specified date. The Department did not oppose the delay in accordance with the High Court's order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and observed that the delay was due to pursuing the matter in the High Court, where the issue of limitation was addressed. The Tribunal excluded the time spent in the writ proceedings from the limitation period, thereby condoning the delay and allowing the petitions. The stay petitions were to be taken up for disposal after notice to the parties.

Another Member of the Tribunal analyzed the case and disagreed with the exclusion of time spent in the writ proceedings for computing the limitation period. However, considering previous judgments and the appellants' bona fide pursuit of the writ remedy, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Member referred to previous cases where pursuing a writ remedy was considered sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Relying on these precedents, the Member held that the appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay beyond the statutory limitation period and, therefore, condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, both Members of the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' pursuit of a writ remedy in the High Court as a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Despite differing views on the exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings for computing the limitation period, both Members agreed that the delay was justified and warranted condonation. The Tribunal relied on established legal principles and precedents to grant relief to the appellants in this matter.

---