Compliance with statutory requirements for filing appeals, the interaction between specific statutory provisions and general provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, and the procedure for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

1. Both these writ appeals are being adjudicated simultaneously for the reason that the question of law involved in both the cases is one and same.

2. By order dated 02/12/2021 the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur imposed a tax liability upon the appellant along with penalty and interest for the vehicles bearing registration Nos.CG-04-EA-0167 and CG-04-EA-0166 in different cases to the extent of Rs.12,90,549/- tax.

Such levy was subject of challenge in the separate writ petitions by the appellant before this Court. This Court by initial order dated 04/05/2022 dismissed the said writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

3. Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1991'). The said appeals were barred by time as were not filed within a period of thirty days as prescribed under Rule 18 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991') and the payment of the penalty was also not made deposited as per proviso clause to Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1991. The appeals having been dismissed on the ground that no application was filed to condone the delay, the same was subject of further challenge before this Court in two separate writ petitions bearing WPT Nos.31 & 28 of 2023. The learned Single Judge by its order dated 27/01/2023 has dismissed both the petitions on the ground that no interference is called for in the order of the appellate authority on the ground that no sufficient grounds have been shown before the appellate authority to condone the delay. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellate authority at the threshold dismissed the application on the ground that no application for condonation of delay was filed. He would further submit that as per Rule 18 (6) of the Rules, 1991, even if appeal is dismissed, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the appellant so that the appellant would have been in a position to explain sufficient reason, if any, to condone the delay. He would further submit that application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can be considered by the appellate Court in view of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as, Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991, do not specifically prohibits the entertainment of appeal beyond the period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, since there is no specific exclusion of the limitation Act, the appellate authority should have given the opportunity of hearing to explain the cause. With respect to the delay in filing this appeal before this Court, certain reasons have been assigned and would submit that the appeal may be adjudicated on its merits.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that proviso clause to Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1991 mandates that statutory deposition of imposition which is levied is required to be deposited, which the appellant has failed and apart from that no application to condone the delay was filed. Under these circumstances, there was no other option left with the appellate authority except to dismiss the appeal. He would further submit that, therefore, under those circumstances, when these facts were challenged before the learned Single Bench, the Court has passed the order which is well merited and do not call for any interference.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

7. So far as filing of these writ appeals before this Court is concerned, there is delay of 91 days in filing WA No.268 of 2023 and there is delay of 97 days in filing WA No.288 of 2023. We went through the reasons assigned in the application to condone the delay filing these writ appeals. Having considered the same, which is supported by the affidavit, wherein th