KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the matters are taken up for hearing as the points raised herein are identically same and the same can be disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts in both the cases are not disputed much. Both the petitioners previously filed writ petitions contending that there was defect in functioning of the respective electric meters installed at their service installation. While disposing of the writ petitions the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose has been pleased to direct all the disputes to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector, West Bengal. The Chief Electrical Inspector thereafter has decided and made awards. The awards apparently have gone in favour of the petitioners. The CESC has preferred two appeals against the aforesaid two awards apparently under Section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. The awards were passed on 13/02/2001 and 19th July 2001 respectively. Appeals were preferred against the aforesaid two orders on 11/06/2001 and 12/09/2001 respectively.

( 3 ) IN the writ petition the short point is that whether the aforesaid two appeals can be entertained by the appellate authority after expiry of limitation period of three months or not.

( 4 ) MR. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate submits that the appellate authority cannot entertain any appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation which in this case is three months. He submits that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction and/or authority to condone delay drawing the principle and/or analogy of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. He submits that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable only in case of Court not even in case of Tribunal formed under a statute. The appellate authority under the aforesaid Act cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed to be a Court so as to apply the provision of Limitation Act 1963.

( 5 ) HIS further contention is that the provision of Limitation Act cannot be made applicable even by analogy unless of course there is expressed provision for making Limitation Act 1963 applicable. In this statute there is no such provision. There are other Acts by which power of condoning delay has been conferred explicitly not by implication. In support of this contention he has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1989 Patna 190.

( 6 ) MR. Pranab Kumar Roy, learned Senior Advocate while opposing contention of Mr. Chatterjee submits that there is no prescribed period of limitation fixed for the appeal of this nature under Section 36 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. He rather contends that if there is any prescribed period of limitation for any appeal then the same has been provided in the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 which has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. Under Rule 6 (3) it has been provided that the appeals as contemplated under the Rules are to be preferred within three months from the date on which such order has been served or delivered or is deemed to have been served or delivered as the case may be. He contends that these two appeals are not intended to prefer under Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rule rather it is preferred under Section 36 (2) for which no prescribed limitation period has been provided. The provision of the aforesaid Rule cannot be made applicable in case of the Act. He submits that in this case though there is no prescribed period of limitation under the Act but the appeals may be preferred within reasonable time as it has been observed by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 299 : (AIR 2000 SC 2027 ).

( 7 ) HAVING heard respective contention of the learned Advocates and having gone through the materials, the points which have fallen for consideration in this case are as follows :- (i) Whether the present two appeals are intended to have been preferred under Section 36 (2) of the afores

Click Here to Read the rest of this document