Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1383 (BOM)

Mahadu v. Vijay

2012-07-26

S.S.SHINDE

body2012
Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik entertained the Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents, herein, challenging the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of decision of the appellate authority. It is submitted that, when a specific point of limitation was raised before the Revisional authority, the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, reported in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 150 and submitted that, the Supreme Court in the facts of the said case held that, the exercise of powers of Revision by the authority, suomotu or otherwise, in absence of no time limit prescribed, it cannot be exercised at any time but must be exercised within a reasonable time. Therefore, relying upon the above mentioned judgment, the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the Revisional authority was not right in entertaining the Revision in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Revision. Therefore, he submitted that, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that, the Revisional authority has considered the matter on merits and allowed the Revision filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Therefore, merely on technical ground, the impugned judgment and order may not be set aside. In the alternative, he submits that, in case this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and order, in that case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 may be permitted to file application for condonation of delay in Revision proceeding. 4. Therefore, merely on technical ground, the impugned judgment and order may not be set aside. In the alternative, he submits that, in case this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and order, in that case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 may be permitted to file application for condonation of delay in Revision proceeding. 4. Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Santoshkumar(supra), it is abundantly clear that, in absence of any time limit prescribed, the revisional powers cannot be exercised at any time and those are to be exercised within a reasonable time. It is an admitted position that, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. the Revision applicants did not file any application for condonation of delay in revision proceeding. The observation of the Revisional authority that, there is no time limit or limitation provided for filing Revision application is contrary to the law laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Santoshkumar(supra). Therefore, on this ground the impugned order is set aside. The Revisional proceeding bearing No.2 of 2004 are restored to its original file. The Revision applicants i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein will be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay in filing Revision. The Revisional Authority will consider the said application for condonation of delay in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to put forth their contentions and thereafter, if the Revisional Authority is satisfied to condone the delay, the Revisional Authority may proceed to decide the Revision on merits. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. 5. It is made clear that, this Court has not touched to the merits of the matter and it is left open for the Revisional authority to adjudicate the Revision on merits in accordance with law, in case the prayer for delay is favourably considered by the Revisional authority. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.