The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of appeal is a statutory right and can be curtailed by the legislature, and the court's power to condone the delay is limited by the statutory provisions.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Cm No.7927/2019

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1722/2019

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 14.11.2018 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (hereafter 'the Appellate Tribunal') in appeal No. 153/DLI/2018.

4. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period as prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-O of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter 'the NDPS Act'). Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was belated and the petitioner had also filed an application seeking condonation of the delay of 457 days in filing the said appeal. The Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the express language of Section 68-O of the NDPS Act, it had no power to condone the delay. The petitioner had also filed an application seeking direction from the Appellate Tribunal to permit it to approach this Court for seeking condonation of delay, however, that prayer was also rejected.

5. The principal question that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal from an order of a Competent Authority, which is filed after expiry of sixty days from the receipt of the order. This Court is also required to consider whether this Court can condone the delay beyond the said period in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Briefly stated, the aforesaid controversy arises in the following factual context:-

6.1 The investigating authorities of Narcotic Control Bureau had effected recoveries of psychotropic substances from certain persons, namely, Amit Kohli, Diwakar Gupta, Nafe Singh and Rajesh Sharma on 05.05.2008. The said persons were thereafter arrested on 06.05.2008, for alleged contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

6.2 It is stated that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer became aware that the aforementioned accused persons had acquired certain immovable properties. It was alleged that the said properties were acquired from tainted money and illicit income generated from trafficking in psychotropic substances.

6.3 The Competent Authority passed an order confirming the order of the Investigating Officer whereby certain properties of the aforementioned accused persons were frozen. The said properties also included (i) Flat No. 201, Florence D-Tower, Grandwood Omaxe, Sector 93B, Noida, U.P. standing in the name of Amit Kohli; and (ii) Flat No. 202, Florence DTower, Grandwood Omaxe, Sector 93B, Noida, U.P. standing in the name of Diwarkar Gupta.

6.4 The affected persons filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal impugning the orders passed by the Investigating Officer as confirmed by the Competent Authority. The said appeals were disposed of by an order dated 16.12.2008, whereby the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority, with the direction to pass appropriate orders after affording the appellants therein a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the remand from the Appellate Tribunal, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 30.03.2017, once again affirming the order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Investigation Officer.

6.5 The petitioner states that its authorized representative who was representing the petitioner before the Competent Authority left the services of the petitioner company on 01.06.2017, without informing the petitioner the status of the said proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the same. The petitioner further claims that it received a notice dated 23.04.2018 under Section 54 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding the aforementioned properties and, on further inquiries, the petitioner became aware of the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Competent Authority.

6.6 On 01.08.