ORDER :

Prayer in W.P.No.23451 of 2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 16.03.2012 made in G.O.(D) No.122 and quash the same and consequentially entertain an appeal against the exparte order dated 01.03.2006 made in ARC No.1794 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent.

Prayer in W.P.No.23451 of 2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 16.03.2012 made in G.O.(D) No.122 and quash the same and consequentially entertain an appeal against the exparte order dated 01.03.2006 made in ARC No.1794 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent.

Prayer in W.P.No.19315 of 2013 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 18.02.2013 made in G.O.(D) No.97 and quash the same and consequentially entertain an appeal against the exparte order dated 20.12.2005 made in ARC No.1795 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent.

Prayer in W.P.No.28071 of 2017 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records in pursuant to the impugned order in ARC No.1154 of 2013 dated 17.03.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and the appeal made thereon in Appeal G.O.(D) No.236 dated 24.05.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to conduct a proper trial by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

A common order is passed in these matters seeing as the issue that arises for decision is one and the same.

2. All petitioners, barring the one in W.P.No.28071 of 2017, had availed financial facilities from Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited (in short, 'company'). All petitioners challenge orders passed by the Appellate Authority being the Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC) passed on various dates returning the appeals filed by them on the ground that the appeals were belated, having been filed beyond the time set out under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Act) and the Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules, 1984 (Rules).

3. There is no dispute on the factual position that the appeals have been filed belatedly. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 31626 of 2013, the appeal was filed with a delay of one year five months and eight days, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.19315 of 2013, with a delay of six years and ten months, in the case of petitioner in W.P.No.23451 of 2012, with a delay of five years nine months and eight days and in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.28071 of 2017, with a delay of two years nine months and two days.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioners would make an attempt to put forth various submissions in relation to conduct of arbitration and erroneous reconciliation of the repayments of loans, this Court does not intend to consider those arguments as admittedly in these cases final awards have been passed.

5. The only question that arises for determination is a legal one, as to whether delay in adhering to limitation for filing of an appeal against the Arbitration Award may be condoned by the appellate authority.

6. Section 70 provides for appeals against decision of the Registrar and states that any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Registrar under Section 69 may, within two months from the date of the said order or award, appeal to the State Government.

7. Rule 49 set outs the procedure for hearing and decision of disputes by the Registrar and reads thus:-

“(1) The Registrar or his nominee shall record in the official language in vogue in the St