Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1505 (MP)

Krishna Ping Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M. P.

2014-11-20

A.M.KHANWILKAR, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This common order will dispose of all the three writ petitions, which take exception to the common order passed by the revisional authority dated 31.12.2002. By the said decision, the revisional authority was pleased to set aside the orders dated 20.1.1995 and 25.4.1996 respectively. 3. The revision applications, however, admittedly, were filed on 5.8.2000. In the revision applications, in paragraph 8, the respondent No.3 had given reasons as to why there was delay in filing the revision applications. Those facts have been adverted to by the revisional authority in paragraph 2 as well as in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. The entire discussion regarding the consideration, which weighed with the revisional authority, can be discerned from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. No discussion, however, even remotely is found about the issue of delay in filing the revision applications by the respondent No.3. The delay was almost of more than 5 years against the decision dated 20.1.1995; and over 4 years in respect of decision dated 25.4.1996, which have been set aside by the revisional authority. 4. It is well established position that even though the authority may have the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause is made out, but, unless the delay is condoned, the Authority cannot assume jurisdiction to decide the main matter on merits. In other words, the authority ought to have first recorded its satisfaction that sufficient cause was made out by the revisionists for condoning the delay of more than 4 years and 5 years in the respective revision applications. After recording that finding, the Revisional Authority could have condoned the delay and then assumed jurisdiction to decide the main matter on merits. That has not been done by the revisional authority in the present case. Instead, the revisional authority proceeded to decide the main matter on merits as discussed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that no separate order has been passed by the revisional authority for condoning the delay in filing the revision applications. 6. Instead, the revisional authority proceeded to decide the main matter on merits as discussed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that no separate order has been passed by the revisional authority for condoning the delay in filing the revision applications. 6. As a result, we are inclined to set aside the impugned common judgment; and, instead, relegate the parties before the Revisional Authority with a direction, firstly to decide the issue of revision applications being barred by limitation and only if the delay were to be condoned, proceed with further hearing on merits of the controversy and record decision afresh by giving opportunity to all concerned on its own merits, in accordance with law. 7. Since the proceedings are pending on the basis of applications made as back as in the year 1993, we direct the revisional authority to decide the restored revision applications not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order either from the private parties or from the Registry of this Court, whichever is earlier. 8. These petitions are disposed of on the above terms. R. S. Jaiswal for petitioners; Swapnil Ganguli, Dy. Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State; Anoop Nair for respondents No.2 & 3.