Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2 (MP)

Godhan Singh Baghel v. State of M. P.

2014-01-02

SANJAY YADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. Order-dated 17.10.2013 passed by Collector, Seoni is being assailed vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; whereby, an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred as to ‘Adhiniyam, 1974’) has been dismissed. 2. The appeal as apparent from the impugned order was directed against order-dated 5.9.2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer as competent authority, directing the petitioner to vacate government premises. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Grade I having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2012. Even after his retirement, the petitioner continued to occupy the government accommodation, which led the competent authority to initiate action under the Adhiniyam, 1974. That, notice under section 4 (1) of Adhiniyam, 1974 was issued on 24.6.2013. Petitioner contested the notice on the ground that he has no alternative accommodation and his General Provident Fund has not been settled & 10% gratuity has been withheld. 3. That, the competent authority passed an order-dated 5.9.2013 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession within a period of three days, failing which he will be forcefully evicted. 4. Against the order-dated 5.9.2013, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition 16439/2013, wherein the petitioner sought liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1974. That, taking into consideration the stand of the petitioner, the petition was disposed of on 30.9.2013 in the following terms - “Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with aforesaid liberty to file an appeal. Pursuant to it, the appellate Court is directed that on filing such appeal on behalf of the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits within 60 days from the date of filing of the same. If any interlocutory application is filed for grant of stay, the same shall also be considered and decided within three days from the date of filing the same. Office is directed to return certified copy of the impugned order annexure P/4 to the petitioner by retaining its photocopy in the record enabling him to file the aforesaid appeal. If any interlocutory application is filed for grant of stay, the same shall also be considered and decided within three days from the date of filing the same. Office is directed to return certified copy of the impugned order annexure P/4 to the petitioner by retaining its photocopy in the record enabling him to file the aforesaid appeal. It is further directed that if appropriate application under section 14 of the Limitation Act along with the aforesaid appeal is filed, then the petitioner shall be entitled to get exclusion of the period in limitation in filing such appeal which has been spent by him in prosecuting the present petition”. 5. The petitioner though preferred an appeal, however, did not file an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act explaining the delay which led the appellate authority to decide the appeal by impugned order-dated 17.10.2013. The appellate authority recorded a finding that an appeal which was to be preferred within a period of fifteen days was preferred after a limitation period has expired and though liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek condonation of delay; however, no application to that effect was filed by the petitioner. 6. The order is being challenged on the ground that the appellate authority committed grave illegality in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and in rejecting the same as barred by time. It is urged that it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have liberally construed the period of limitation and should have entertained the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered in Banshidar Goyanka v. Alok Kumar 2010(4) MPLJ 49 . 7. Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1974 makes a provision for appeal against the order passed by the competent authority in respect of public premises under section 5 or 7. It stipulates - “9. Appeals:- (1) The State Government may, by notification, appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Collector as appellate authority for the purpose of this Act in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) An appeal shall lie from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 7 to the appellate authority appointed under sub-section (1). (2) An appeal shall lie from every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 7 to the appellate authority appointed under sub-section (1). (3) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall lie, - (a) in case of appeal from an order under section 5, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and (b) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 7, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant : Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (4) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the competent authority, the appellate authority may stay the enforcement of that order for a total period not exceeding sixty day and on such conditions as it may deem fit. (5) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible. (6) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate authority. 8. Thus, as per clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9, an appeal against the order passed under section 5 has to be preferred within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order. Proviso to sub-section (3) stipulates that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 9. The exercise of the discretion by the appellate authority in entertaining the time barred appeal would be only when such application is filed by the appellant. 10. In the case at hand, admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was after expiry of period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under section 5. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that no application for condonation of delay was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. In the case at hand, admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was after expiry of period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under section 5. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that no application for condonation of delay was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thus, there was no foundation for the appellate authority to have exercised its discretion in case of time barred appeal as required under proviso appended to sub-section (3) of section 9 of Adhiniyam, 1974. 11. In these given facts, contention of the petitioner that limitation ought to have been liberally construed by the appellate authority does not arise. It is the petitioner who has to blame himself in not filing an application for condonation of delay. 12. In view whereof, the impugned order cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference. 13. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. However, no costs.