TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and decided in this group of petitions are only legal issues, the respondents do not have any objection if the petitions are heard and decided finally at admission stage. 2.1 In view of the said request by learned advocate for the petitioners and the fair stand by learned AGP and with her consent the petitions are taken up for hearing and final decision however, so as to eliminate any technical objections, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP has waived service of Rule. With consent of learned AGP the petitions are heard and decided finally. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the facts involved in group of these petitions are similar and common and the respondents are also common. Learned Counsel for petitioner further clarified that the date of the orders impugned in the petitions is also the same and the date of the respective documents in question are also same. The learned AGP confirmed the said submission. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned AGP have advanced common submissions. In this view of the matter, the petitions are decided by common order. 4. The relevant details and the relief prayed for are derived (and considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers received a notice dated 21/11/2013 directing the petitioners to make submissions on 30/11/2013. 3.4 To the shock and surprise of the petitioners, without considering the evidence produced by the petitioners, a totally unreasoned nonspeaking order was passed on 16/6/2014 by the respondent number 3. The same was received by the petitioners on 19/6/2014. 3.5 The Petitioners, accordingly met their legal representative with a view to prepare an appeal. The same could only be done in September, since prior there to the petitioners had been traveling. Accordingly after making the statutory deposit of 25% of deficit stamp duty, as provided for under the provisions of section 53 of the act, on 6/9/2014, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 13/9/2014 under the bonafide impression that the last date of limitation period as envisaged under the provisions of the act was 16/9/2014. The said appeal was received by the respondent number 2 on 15/9/2014. 3.7 To the great shock and surprise of the petitioners, the petitioners received the order impugned dated 21/10/2014 rejecting the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that the said appeal was beyond the period of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t out of the adjudicated amount, amount @ 25% must be deposited by the person intending to file revision application against the disputed order and that therefore the petitioners deposited the amount @ 25% of the adjudicated amount, with the office of respondent No. 2, on 6.9.2014 and accordingly the petitioners complied the condition for filing and maintaining the appeals. 7.3 It is further claimed by the petitioners that the amount was deposited on 6.9.2014 and the petitioners' bonafide belief that upon complying the condition to deposit the amount the requirement of filing the application in prescribed time limit stands complied. It is also claimed by the petitioners that inspite of such bonafide belief the petitioners, filed (within prescribed limitation) the revision application against the orders in question, on 13.9.2014. 7.4 The respondents have claimed that the said appeals i.e. memo of the appeals were received in the office of respondent No. 2 (i.e. the competent authority) on 15.9.2014. 7.5 The petitioners have claimed that though the revision applications were filed / submitted on 13.9.2014 (and even if the respondents' claim is to be believed, then also the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation. 8.3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner would, respond to the said contention and would submit that the date of knowledge would be the relevant date and consequently the date of receipt of the order by the petitioners should be taken into account and the respondents are not justified in taking into account the date of the order. 9. The respondents have taken into account the date of the order (passed by respondent No. 3) i.e. 16.6.2014 as the starting point for calculating period of limitation and 15.9.2014 as the date of submission of revision applications. By taking said termini and calculating the period of limitation on the said premise, the respondents concluded that the revision applications were filed on 92nd day i.e. the submission of application was delayed by 2 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. 9.1 It appears that the petitioners opposed the said intimation / order by their letter dated 24.11.2014 and claimed that the revision applications were filed within prescribed time limit and even if the date considered by the respondents i.e. 15.9.2014 is taken into account then also it would be 89th day and that therefore the revision ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to the date of first authroitys order (16.6.2014) period of 90 days would expire on 14.9.2014 (6) Whereas according to the date when the order was received by the petitioners period of 90 days would expire on 16.9.2014 (7) Date on which competent authority's office received the appeal/s - applications 15.9.2014 10.2 Thus, the revision application / appeal was filed / received in the office of the authority before 90 days from the date on which the order was served / communicated to the petitioner. 10.3 In light of the said facts and details learned AGP relied on and emphasized clause (a) of first proviso of sub-section (1) of section 53 which provides, inter alia that "........such application is presented within a period of 90 days from the date of the collector" and she claimed that the provision specifically mentions ".....from the date of the order...." and that therefore the date when the order is passed / signed is the relevant date and it is only the said date which can be taken into account. According to learned AGP in view of such specific provision any other date cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating limitation / delay a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely:- (1) In the case of any company, ... ... ... (a) ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... (2) In the case of any firm, ... ... ... (a) ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... (3) In the case of a family ... ... ... (4) In the case of any individual person, the notice or order shall be served, -- (a) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or to his advocate or authorized agent ; or (b) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or (c) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post with acknowledgment due; or (d) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned." 14.1 The said provision prescribes the manner of service of any notice or order in case of an individual. 15. In light of the said provision it is relevant to mention that the respondents have also not disputed that the office of the first adjudicating authority had dispatched the order (dated 16.6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and order is passed and / or when the person is not aware about the actual decision i.e. contents of the order, he cannot effectively and meaningfully avail the remedy provided under the Act. Unless the person has the knowledge about the order the provisions / remedy will be meaningless. Therefore, the said provision i.e. Section 53 of the Act and more particularly the expression "from the date of the order" must be construed to make the provision and the remedy effective and meaningful and not in a manner which would restrict the period of said remedy's availability i.e. the period for which the remedy would be effectively available to the concerned and affected person. 18. In this view of the matter the decision of the authority to take, as relevant date, the date of the order i.e. the date when the order was passed / signed (and not the date on which the order was served or communicated to the concerned person) cannot be sustained. 19. The impugned decision is contrary to the object of the provision and militates against the scheme of the Act and the rules. 19.1 The said view and decision of the authority ignores that for real, practical and actual operation of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relevant provisions relating to the limitation. Section 15 of the Act makes a provision for appeal and prescribes the limitation for the same. It reads as under : "15. Appeal.-- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the Stare Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of an order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided further that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there were sufficient cause for not finding it within that period. 11. From the scheme of the Act it becomes apparent that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has, been enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers, as a measure for economical and speedy remedy for the settlement of their disputes and matters connected therewith. It is with this object in view that Rule 4(10) has also been made. It provides for communication of the order of the District Forum to the parties free of charge in order to avoid the delay as well as to save the parties from the burden of expenses th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pronouncement of the order in the open Court by itself cannot be the starting point for determining the period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act. It has also to be shown that the order of the District Forum so pronounced was duly signed and dated by the members of the District Forum constituting the Bench and the same was communicated to the parties...." Of course, it can be claimed that the said observations are in light of Section 15 which was under consideration before the Apex Court. However, said distinction does not wipe-out the legal position explained and settled by the Apex Court viz. communication of the order and its contents i.e. knowledge about the actual decision and the order is the relevant and material aspect for calculating period of limitation and deciding as to whether the particular application or appeal is filed within prescribed period of limitation or not. 20.2 Consequently, in the cases where the order is passed sometime after the hearing gets concluded and it is not passed or not pronounced in presence of the concerned party or his representative, the concerned party may not be able to file application within 90 days 'from the date of ode....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al for the first time on the 28th May 1951, the said order must be deemed to have taken effect as from the 3rd June 1949 when it was actually passed. The High Court has rejected this contention; but Mr. Bishan Narain contends that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous in law.We are not impressed by Mr. Bishan Narains' argument. It is plain that the mere passing of an order of dismissal would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. If the appointing authority passed an order of dismissal, but does not communicate it to the officer concerned, theoretically it is possible that unlike in the case of a judicial order pronounced in Court, the authority may change its mind and decide to modify its order. It may be that in some cases, the authority may fell that the ends of justice would be met by demoting the officer concerned rather than dismissing him. An order of dismissal passed by the appropriate authority and kept with itself, cannot be said to take effect unless the officer concerned knows about the said order and it is otherwise communicated to all the parties concerned. If it is held that the mere passing of the order of dism....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also about the direction. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court an authority may pass and sign an order and such order may be retained on file without communicating and forwarding it to the concerned person. The knowledge that an order is passed as well as knowledge about the actual decision and effect of the decision are imperative for calculating and enforcing the limitation prescribed (for filing application under Section 53 of the Act) by the Act. 23. Since inspite of several decisions and directions by this Court the respondent authorities under the Act are adamantly refusing to take note of this position in law and in view of the fact that the revisional authority under the Act repeatedly and adamantly decides maintainability of revision applications under Section 53 of the Act and dismisses the application at threshold by taking into account the date on which the order is passed and signed and not by considering the date on which the order is communicated to and served to the concerned person and having regard to the fact that such orders are passed at threshold i.e. even without issuing notice and / or without granting opportunity to the applicant to explain relevant detail....