Mistake of counsel may be considered as a sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing an application under a special law, especially when there is no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fides on the part of the appellant.

Revision petitioner filed O.P.No.34 of 1993 before the District Court, Trivandrum under sub-section (8) of S.8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "the act" ) against an order passed under sub-section (4) of S.8 of the Act. There was a delay in filing the application and the petitioner filed I. A.No.535 of 1993 for condoning the same. That application was rejected by the learned District Judge as per the order challenged in the revision petition.

2. The order under S.8(4) of the Act was affixed on the front door of the petitioner's house on 15-12-1992. Going by the provisions contained in S.8(8) of the Act the petitioner should have filed the application within 30 days from 15-12-1992. However, it was filed only on 15-3-1993. There was thus a delay of two months in filing the application.

3. According to the petitioner, the delay in filing the O.P. occurred mainly on account of the wrong advice received by her from her Advocate who was approached by her immediately on getting information about the order. The Advocate at the first instance advised the petitioner to file a petition before the District Collector and the Director. General of Police. Accordingly the petitioner has within time represented her grievance to the District Collector through her Advocate. It was when she again approached the Advocate after six weeks that the Advocate has advised her to file a petition under S.8(8) of the Act before the District Court. If she was advised at the first instance itself to file a petition under S.8(8) of the Act the delay would not have occurred in the matter. In support of the said allegations the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn to by the Advocate who was approached by her for advice regarding the actions to be taken to challenge the order passed under S.8(4) of the Act.

4. Learned District Judge refused to condone the delay on two grounds. Firstly, it was pointed out that in the affidavit filed by the Advocate he has not stated that he was not aware of the Act and its provisions. Secondly it was stated that the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable to special statutes under which time is specified for filing applications.

5. I may first consider the question whether the provisions of the Limitation Act especially S.5 which is relied upon by the petitioner in this case is applicable to the case. To decide the above question it is necessary to refer to S.29(2) of the Limitation Act and S.8(8) of the Act. They are thus:

"29(2): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of S.3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Ss.4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

Section 8(8): Any person aggrieved by a notification issued in respect of a place under sub-section (1) or by an order made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of the notification or order, as the case may be, make an application to the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such notified place is situate

(a) for declaration that the place has not been used for the purpose of the unlawful association; or

(b) for setting aside the order made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) and on receipt of the application the Court of the District Judge shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question."

6. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is obviously a special law visa-vis the Limitation Act which deals with the general law of limitation applicable to all classes of cases dealt with therein. From the