The provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the cases dealt with by the executive authorities which are only quasi-judicial authorities under the Essential Commodities Act and the appeals have to be filed within 30 days of the order of the primary authority.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by a fair price shop dealer questioning the endorsment of the Joint Collector, Krishna, dated 6-10-1990 rejecting the appeal petition filed by the petitioner as time barred and to quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was originally appointed as a fair price shop dealer for Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, by the Sub-Collector, vijayawada, through his proceedings dated 22-2-1987 under the provisions of the A. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card system) Order, 1973. While so, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued orders on 14-9-1989 suspending the petitioner as dealer. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Zilla abhivrudhi Sameeksha Mandali. The Chairman of the said Mandali allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Civil Supplies authorities to issue necessary quotas for distribution after setting aside the order of suspension passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 14-9-1989.

( 3 ) THE petitioner alleges that as the order of suspension has been cancelled by the Minister concerned who was the Chairman of the Mandali, the civil Supplies authorities developed a grouse against him and so they have been weaving out ways and means to dislodge him from the dealership. Keeping that object in mind, the Mandal Revenue Officer, made a report against the petitioner through his proceedings dated 1-10-1989 to the sub-Collector, Vijayawda, alleging certain irregularities during his supervision of the shop. Thereafter, the Sub-Colletor, Vijayawada, issued a show cause notice dated 28-11-1989 to the petitioner to submit his explanation to five charges levelled against him. The petitioner accordingly submitted an explanation with correct details. But the Sub-Collector, the petitioner alleges, having been carried away by the report of his subordinate officers and without properly applying his mind judiciously passed orders cancelling his appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the said order of the Sub-Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector, Krishna. The Joint Collector, krishna, after considering the submissions made by the petitioner, passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner that there is delay of 9 days in filing the appeal and according to Section 17 (1) of the A. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card system) Order, 1973 ( the Distribution Order for short) he is not vested with powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Challeging the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition,

( 5 ) SRI Y. Visweswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred; the appellate authority has not considered the provisions under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the effect of absence of any specific provision excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24; and there being no specific exclusion under the Essential Commodites Act, the provisions under Section 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.

( 6 ) IN a quite identical case in W. P. Nos. 17537 and 17538 of 1990, where the appellate authority dismissed the appeals holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply following the decisions of the Supreme court in Town Municipal Council, Athan t vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Courtl and Nityanand M. Joshi vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India this court held on 5-2-1991 that in view of the principles laid down by the supreme Court in the above two decisions which have been rightly followed by the appellate authority in those cases, the provisions of the Limitation act are not applicable to the cases dealt with by the executive authorities which are only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document