IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to tire appeals filed u/ s 6-C of Essential Commodities Act & also the appeals provided under tire orders, which are promulgated under Section 3 of the said Act.

JUDGMENT

B. Subhashan Reddy. J.

Whether Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act') is applicable only to the Courts and as to whether Sec. 50f the said Act can be availed of for appeals filed under Sec. 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the E.C. Act') as also the orders made there under - are the IMPORTANT POINTs for consideration in this batch of writ petitions.

2. In all these cases, the proceedings under. Sec. 6-A of E.C. Act were initiated after seizing the essential commodities on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Orders promulgated under Sec. 3 thereof and consequently violating Sec. 3 and attracting penal provisions for confiscation of the commodities. Sec. 6-A of E.C. Act contemplated initiation of proceedings and issuance of show-cause notice from which stage the proceedings are started and after holding enquiry orders are passed under Sec. 6-A of Act by the primary authority. In all these cases, the primary authority has passed orders against the petitioners holding that violations were committed and consequently confiscation was ordered. Statutory appeal is provided under Sec. 6-C of the E.C. Act to the State Government, within a period of one month from the date of communication of the said order. In all the cases except, in W.P. No. 13495 of 1993, appeal provision was invoked by the petitioners, but with delay, as the appeals were filed beyond the said period of one month. While some appeals were filed with delay contending that there was no delay on the ground of delay in communication of the order, in some cases delay condonation petition were filed invoking Sec. 5 of Limitation Act. Holding that the Appellate Authority is not vested with the power of condoning delay and that Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable, the appeals were dismissed without entering into the merits. Hence, these writ petitions.

3. Mr. M.V, Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners .ed the arguments and submitted that in view of Sec. 29(2) of Limitation Act, Sec. 5 thereof is applicable to the appeals filed under Sec. 6-C of E.C. Act, as also the appeals provided under the orders promulgated in exercise of the power under Sec. 3 thereof. He relies upon the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. C.P. Aboobacker1.

4. Ms. Rohini, the learned Government Pleader counters the arguments and supports the orders if the Appellate Authority under Sec. 6-C of E.C. Act dismissing the appeals on the ground of bar of limitation of one month prescribed therein and that Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act is not applicable. She relies upon the .two judgments of this Court rendered by the learned Single Judge in Rajendra Modem Rice Mill v. Gout, of A.P.2, and T.M. Asilamani v. State of A.P.3,

5. Savings Clause provided under Sec. 2.9 was differently worded in Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as compared to the Limitation Act of 1963. While under the Limitation Act of 1908, Sees. 4, 9 to 18 and 22 were applicable for determining the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, if the application of the said sections was not excluded by such special or local law, It was emphatic and it expressly excluded the applicability of any other provision of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 other than Sees. 4, 9 to 18 and 22 to any suit, appeal or application under any special or local law. As such, Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act was not applicable, as the application of the same was expressly barred. Coming to the same provision. as amended in 1963 the words employed are converse and subsec. (2) of See . 29 of Limitation Act, 1963 makes the Sees. 4 to 24 applicable to any suit, appeal or application under any special or local law, if the special or loca1law does not expressly exclude the application of the said provisions. As such, there is a marked difference between the Indian Limitatio