The time limit fixed by the respondent authority was not mandatory and it was extended from time to time. Therefore, the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality in passing a direction upon the appellant to consider the claim of the writ petitioners beyond the time fixed by them.

( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated 8th January, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the said learned judge allowed the writ application filed by the respondents before us by directing the present appellant to consider the claim of the respondents for getting ex gratia payment as compensation for the properties left by the respondents in the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in accordance with law after condoning 35 days' delay in presenting the claim before the appropriate authority.

( 2 ) BEING dissatisfied, the Union of India has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said writ application may be summarized thus: the writ petitioners, four in number, claimed to be the successors of one chandra Bhusan Kundu, the younger son of late Kanai Lal Kundu, who had been a Zaminder of Meherpur in District of Kustia, now in Bangladesh. The said Kanai Lal had two sons, viz, late Bibhuti Bhusan and late Chandra bhusan and thus, on thus, on the death of the said Kanai Lal, his estate developed upon his two sons. Bibhuti Bhusan died in the year 1968 leaving a Will by bequeathing his half share in favour of his wife, viz. one mayalata. The other half share belonging to Chandra Bhusan developed upon his widow and the three sons who were the writ petitioners. The question of giving relief to the Indian Nationals who lost their property in Pakistan came up for consideration before the Government of India and in the month of March, 1971, it was decided that the Indian nationals who had lost their property in Pakistan would be given ex gratia grant. Pursuant to such decision, notifications had been issued from time to time inviting claims for such ex gratia grant in respect of the lost property. There is no dispute that the last date notified for submission of the claim had from time to time been extended. It appears from a notice dated 7th may, 1971 that 15th July, 1971 was the last date of submission of claim and it was stipulated therein that the claim submitted beyond that date would be rejected. However, by subsequent notification dated 16* January, 1977, the claims were further invited in respect of those properties abandoned in East pakistan within 31st July, 1977 at the latest. The said notification further indicated that the extension of time mentioned therein was the final extension of time and beyond that date, no further claim would be entertained. The writ petitioners submitted their application on 5th september, 1977, that is, 35 days beyond the last date mentioned in the said notification. Smt. Maya Rani Kundu, the widow of Bibhuti Bhusan, the co-sharer of the writ petitioners submitted an application within the stipulated period claiming 50% of the ex gratia payment and such claim was accepted by the Union of India and the amount of money was duly paid in her favour. The Union of India did not answer to the claim made by the writ petitioners, as a result, they made further representations for considering their claim. Ultimately, by a memo dated 11th March, 1982 written in reply to the letter dated 2nd March, 1982, the Union of India informed the writ petitioners that the last date for filing the claim with the custodian of the enemy property was 31st July, 1977 and that any claim lodged after the date was time-barred. However, it was stated that in the claim, if any number was allotted, the petitioners were required to furnish documentary evidence in support of their claim to the custodiam of enemy property at Bombay. In the letter dated 11th March, 1982, the petitioners were requested to furnish documentary evidence in support of their claim to the custodian of enemy property, Bombay, by giving tick mark at the relevant clause out of several clauses mentioned therein. After receiving the said letter, the writ petitioners explained the delay in filing their clai