2016 (1) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appeal was within the period of limitation upto 14.6.2015 and, thereafter, it was beyond time by 20 days. Further, the Stamp Reporter pointed out a defect, namely that the certified copy of the impugned order of the Tribunal was not filed. The memo of appeal was returned to the counsel to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to remove the defect. The appeal was again presented before the Stamp Reporter on 28.9.2015. The defect was removed and the certified copy of the impugned order was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal came up for admission before the Court on 5.10.2015, on which date, the Court noticed that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at is alleged to have been prepared on 12.10.2015, has also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, which indicates that the affidavit was to be signed by the Clerk of the Advocate. This supplementary affidavit however, does not explain the delay as to why the appeal could not be filed from 12.6.2015 to 20.9.2015. However, since the allegations were serious, we directed the Registry to serve a copy of this affidavit to the earlier counsel of the department and requested him to file a reply. Sri Vinod Kant, the learned counsel has filed his personal affidavit indicating that the Department through their officials including the Commissioner were intimated orally to send the certified copy of the impugned order and file an affidavit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....half of the Department. Even if there had been a delay, which could be attributed to the office of the learned counsel, nonetheless the affidavit had to be sworn by an officer of the Department. Such practice adopted by the Department is totally deplorable, which in the instant case is writ large. We find that an affidavit was prepared on 12.10.2015 but the Officer left Allahabad without swearing the affidavit knowing fully well that the case was to be taken up on 13.10.2015. What in such circumstances the learned counsel could do, except to send an illness slip. These facts are being stated so that the Department may become aware that such kind of practice is unwarranted. The Court can read between the lines and see the fine print that com....