JUDGMENT:- In these three petitions common questions of law and facts arise and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

3. In all these three petitions the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In Writ Petition No.5890 of2006, there was a delay of 2 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. In Writ Petition No.5887 of 2006, the delay was of 83 days in filing the appeal. In Writ Petition No.5891 of 2006, the delay was of 3 months and 6 days in filing the appeal.

4. In Writ Petition Nos.5890 and 5891 of 2006, the petitioners had filed the applications for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant was employed as a driver in Government service and he could not get the necessary leave as also he had no knowledge about the provisions of law and that, therefore, there was delay as stated above in filing the appeals. In Writ Petition No.5887 of 2006 the applicant has filed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant was suffering from asthma and had no knowledge of law and, therefore, there was delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.

5. The contention of the petitioners in all these petitions is that when the matters were fixed for hearing of the applications for condonation of delay, the respondents filed an application raising the issue of non-maintainability of the appeal and the matters thereafter were adjourned for hearing on the said application raising the objection to the maintainability of the appeals and the matters regarding the condonation of delay were not heard. It is their case that after hearing the application on the maintainability issue, the matter was fixed for orders but the learned Appellate Authority instead of deciding the said application regarding the objection to the maintainability of the appeal, proceeded to decide the issue relating to delay in filing the appeals when in fact the matters were not heard in that regard. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is disputed and denied by the respondents.

6. In the course of hearing of the matters, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the roznama of tl1e proceedings before the lower Appellate Authority clearly reveals that from 10-3-2006 the matters proceeded with respect to the application raising objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals till the date of passing of the orders. The roznama nowhere discloses that the matters were heard in relation to the applications for condonation of delay. He further submitted that the applicants ought to have been given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their applications for condonation of delay. The lower Appellate Court failed to give any such opportunity to the petitioners. According to him, even on this day the petitioners are ready and willing to lead evidence to justify the delay in filing the appeals. Pursuant to the query by the Court as to whether the petitioners have filed any affidavit before the lower Appellate Court bringing to the notice of the said Court that the matters were merely heard on the point of non-maintainability of the appeals and not on the point of condonation of delay, the learned Advocate submitted that the petitioners are ready and prepared to file the affidavit of the Advocates who had appeared in the matter on behalf of the petitioners to establish the fact that the matter was heard only on the issue of non-maintainability of the appeals and not relating to condonation of delay.

7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the matters were heard also on the point of condonation of delay and accordingly the impugned orders have been passed. He also submitted that the Advocates have not filed any affidavit in support of the allegation on behalf of the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document