IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate tribunals have discretion to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limit upon showing sufficient cause, with no strict outer time limit specified in the relevant act.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

These appeals impugn the orders dated 19.03.2025 passed by the appellate tribunal under SAFEMA refusing to condone the delay of 204 days in preferring statutory appeals under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

The appellant in these cases is a charitable and religious trust engaged in social welfare, educational and community development activities, operating under the spiritual umbrella of the Believers Eastern Church. The appellant was faced with a proceeding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and was served with a show cause notice dated 8.8.2022. Based on the reply dated 22.8.2022, a further show cause notice dated 22.10.2022 was issued for which a reply dated 9.11.2022 was given. Rejecting the reply, a provisional order of attachment was passed under Section 22(4)(b)(i) dated 25.11.2022. Final order under Section 24(4) was also passed by the initiating officer. Later on 6.12.2022, a show cause notice under Section 26 of the Act was issued by the adjudicating authority. The appellant filed a common reply on 5.6.2023, but however, the adjudicating authority rejected the reply and passed final orders on 30.9.2023. The order was received by the appellant on 6.10.2023. The appeal under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ought to have been filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The period for filing of the appeals expired on 20.11.2023 and the appeals were filed only on 13.6.2024 with applications for condonation of delay of 204 days. The appellate authority found that the reasons for the delay had not been properly explained and therefore, rejected the applications for condonation of delay and as a consequence, the appeals were also dismissed. Against the said orders, the present appeals are preferred, raising the following common substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate tribunal was right in law in not condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in not considering the sufficient cause furnished and explained by the appellant in condoning the delay of 204 days in filing the appeal?”

3. Heard Sri.R.Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Sri.Nikhil Berny, and Sri.G.Keerthivas, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that till January, 2024, the appellant was held up in spiritual activities because of the Christmas season, after which, the appellant sought legal advice as regards the maintainability of the proceedings taken by the adjudicating authority and was intending to prefer a writ petition challenging the very initiation of the proceedings. However, subsequently, the appellant got legal advice that it would be better if the appellant chooses to avail the alternate remedy of preferring appeals before the appellate tribunal. It was in these circumstances that the delay of 204 days occurred in these cases. In support of his contention, relied on the decision of this Court in George Antony v. Albert Antony [ RSA No.233/2025 dated 27.5.2025 ]. He further pointed out that the appeals preferred by the benamidar have been numbered as Appeal Nos.37 & 38 of 2024. Those appeals are admitted and posted for further consideration to 5.8.2025.

5. Per contra, Sri.G.Keerthivas, the learned counsel appearing for the responden