Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Anil Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 07.03.2022 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the original application before the Tribunal has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner in the original application sought to impugn the enquiry report dated 23.03.2006 as well as the major penalty imposed on 13.04.2006 as well as the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority.
3. As per the petitioner, petitioner was issued a chargesheet dated 03.03.2006. Petitioner contends that prior to issuance of the chargesheet the enquiry officer had already been appointed and no opportunity given to the petitioner to respond to the allegations of charge before the enquiry officer was appointed.
4. Petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of the original application on 09.02.2022 with a delay of 4899 days.
5. In the subject application seeking condonation of delay, the ground taken by the petitioner was that petitioner was not aware of the infraction in the enquiry proceedings i.e. violation of Fundamental Rule 56J and became aware only when an query was made under the Right to Information Act and a response thereto received
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for filing applications and clarified the interpretation of when the cause of action accrues in such cases.
A delay of 4899 days in filing an application was not sufficiently explained and was denied for condonation under the Limitation Act, as awareness of orders existed since 2006.
The applicant failed to substantiate grounds for condonation of significant delay in filing an application, despite referencing relevant legal precedents.
Ignorance of law by educated applicant not sufficient cause to condone 7-year delay under S.21 Administrative Tribunals Act.
The court emphasizes that a delay in filing a petition must be justified with sufficient cause, and mere claims without evidence will not suffice.
The main legal point established is that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should arise post the order being challenged and continue until the filing of the application, and the extension o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
