G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) PROCEEDINGS under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Precurement Levy Order, 1984, by the authorities of the Civil Supplies Department. The Collector, Adilabad district, who is the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order of confiscation of 50% in W. P. 17538/90 and 25% in W. P. 17537/90 of the stocks seized, on 13-8-1990. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners have preferred appeals under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. As Appeals have to be preferred within 30 days the appeals in these have been filed with a delay of 5 days the appellate authority dismissed the appeals on 16-10-1990 holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the said authority. The appellate authority followed an order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 3951 of 1990 at the stage of admission on 13-3-1990. The Appellate authority also followed the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Town Municipal Council, Athani Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour court, Hubli and Nityanand M. Joshi vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of india.

( 2 ) QUESTIONING the validity of the orders passed by the appellate authority, the petitioners have now filed the writ petitions contending inter alia that the two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellate authority did not arise under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and that the order of this Court in W. P. No. 3951 of 1990 dated. 13-3-1990, which was followed by the appellate authority, was passed only at the admission stage and, therefore, the appellate authority has srred in dismissing the appeals as they are filed beyond 30 days. It is also contended by the petitioners that the provisions under Sec. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the effect of absence of any specific provisions excluding the applicability of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act were not considered by the appellate authority, whereas under section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act and as has been held by the appellate authority, there being no specific exclusion under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the provisions under Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do apply to the present case also and the appellate authority has ample power to condone the delay, but the same was erroneously rejected.

( 3 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri Prakasa Rao, placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Smt. Lata Kamat vs. Vilas a case arising under the Hindu marriage Act (25 of 1955 ). In that case, the respondent-husband before the Supreme Court instituted a petition for declaration that the marriage with the applicant wife was a nullity under Sub-Section (1), Sub-CIause (d) of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior division, Nagpur, granted a decree in favour of the respondent husband on 3-5-1985. The wife filed a regular appeal before the II Addl. District judge, Nagpur. In that appeal, the husband raised a preliminary objection that after passing of the Judgment and decree dated 3-5-1985 by the trial court, he has married another lady on 27-6-1985 and when there was no impediment against him which could come in his way for contracting the second marriage as the parties were relegated to the position as if they were not married and therefore the marriage after the decree was legal and valid and consequently the appeal filed by the wife was not tenable having been rendered infructuous. The appellate Judge allowed the objection and dismissed the appeal. The second appeal preferred by the wife was also dismissed by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court held :"the schedule in the Limitation Act do not provide for an appeal, under the Hindu Marriage Act but it is only provided in Cl. (4) of S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus the Limitation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document