Limitation for appeal not strict where parties pursued departmental reconsideration in good faith before approaching appellate authority.

An appeal should not be rejected as time-barred where the appellant, acting in good faith, had first sought reconsideration before the Superintendent and was challenging the later communication rather than an earlier unclear letter. The Tribunal held that the earlier communication did not clearly disclose an appealable order and the appellants could not be faulted for pursuing the matter at the departmental level before approaching the appellate authority. The limitation objection was therefore not sustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) was treated by the lower authority as being against an earlier letter of the Superintendent and was held time-barred under the limitation period prescribed for appeals. The Tribunal found that the appellants had proceeded on the footing that they were challenging the later communication, had first sought reconsideration from the Superintendent in good faith, and were not shown to have acted negligently or deliberately delayed the matter. It was also noticed that the earlier communication did not clearly indicate that it was an appealable order, and the appellants could not be faulted for pursuing the matter at the Superintendent's level before approaching the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The appeal ought to have been treated as filed against the later communication and was not liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the Collector (Appeals).

---