Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (Puda) – Appellant
Versus
Jasneet Kaur Chahal & Anr. – Respondents
RERA-Appl-31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 -2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-10-2022
Delay Condonation - Real Estate Regulatory Authority - 1988(2) SCC 142, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 4 SCC 365, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770, Collector,Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 - The court discussed the delay condonation in filing appeals and emphasized the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 to advance substantial justice. It highlighted the importance of public interest in cases involving the government and the need for a holistic view of the matter, setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and requesting a decision on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The Real Estate Regulatory Authority passed an order against a public authority, and the public authority filed appeals along with applications for condonation of delay. The Appellate Tribunal refused to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and requested a decision on the appeals on merits, emphasizing the importance of public interest and the need for a holistic view of the matter.
Issues: Delay condonation in filing appeals, public interest, and the need for a holistic view of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 to advance substantial justice, highlighted the importance of public interest in cases involving the government, and requested a decision on the appeals on merits.
Final Decision: The present appeals stand allowed, and the delay of 86 days in filing the appeals shall stand condoned. The first appeals filed by the appellant shall stand restored to their original numbers, and the Appellate Tribunal is requested to decide the appeals expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - By this order, 9 RERA appeals i.e RERA-Appeal No.32,31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of 2020 shall stand disposed of.
2. While refusing to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the first appeals, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed as many as 9 appeals. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority passed the impugned order on 22nd October, 2019. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, on receipt of the copies of various orders, filed respective appeals alongwith applications for condonation of delay. The delay was sought to be explained in the following manner:-
'2.That in the present case, the Ld. Authority had passed the impugned order on 22.10.2019. Copy of the order was dispatched on 06.11.2019 and had been received in the office of the appellant on 18.11.2019 which was diarized vide No. 26744 dated 18.11.2019 and was marked to Legal Advisor (LA) on the same very date. The LA marked it to SLO with the remarks, 'Pl. examine and put up on file and the SLO marked the file to LO-1.
3. That L0-1 after collecting the relevant documents from the office of the Appellant and also from the counsel of the appellant who conducted the case before the the Ld. Real Estate Regulatory Authority and put up a detailed note on 20.12.2019 to SLO/LA/EO. The Estate officer marked the file to AEO on 23.12.2019 for comments to AEO. The AEO further marked the file to AO on 24.12.2019 and AO marked the file to SO (R)/ SA on 24.12.2019.
4. That the Senior Assistant, after calculating the amount of interest marked the file to SO(R) on 06.01.2020, the SO (R) marked it to AEO on 07.01.2020 and AEO marked it to the Superintendent on 07.01.2020. The Superintendent marked the file to SA on 08.01.2020 who after examination sent the file back to the Superintendent on the same very day and the Superintendent marked it to the AEO on 10.01.2020. The AEO returned the file the assistant with some observations on 13.01.2020. The Assistant again sent the file to the Superintendent on 14.01.2020 and the Superintendent marked the same to the AEO on 15.01.2020. The AEO marked it to Estate Officer on 15.01.2020. The Estate officer marked the file to the Legal Advisor (LA) on 16.01.2020 which was received by him on 20.01.2020 and marked it to the Law Officer (LO).
5. That the Law Officer examined the file in detail and put up the file to obtain orders for filing Appeal against the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Ld. RERA Authority on 22.01.2020 and marked it to Legal Advisor. The Legal Advisor marked the file to Additional Chief Administer (HQ) (ACA) on 23.01.2020. The ACA sent the file to the Chief Administrator on 28.01.2020 who, after approval sent the file back to ACA (HQ) on 28.01.2020 and ACA (HQ) marked it back to LA on 29.01.2020 and the LA to LO on the same very date.
6. That the Law Officer again put up the file on 30.01.2020 to LA to get the Demand Drafts prepared for filing the Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The LA sent the file to the EO on 31.01.2020 and the EO marked it to AEO/Supdt/Asstt on the same very date. The dealing Assistant on 03.02.2020 put up a note for getting the demand drafts prepared from the Accounts Wing and marked it to Superintendent and the Superintendent marked to AEO on 04.02.2020 who further marked it to AO on the same date. The AO marked the file to the So (R)/SA on 05.02.2020.
7. That the Dealing Assistant of the Accounts Wing, after calculating the amount of interest in terms of order dated 07.11.2019 and put up for approval to the So on 07.02.2020. The SO marked it to AO who marked it to Superintendent on 07.02.2020. The Superintendent marked it to Assistant on 11.02.2020 who put up the draft for sanction on 14.02.2020 and marked it to the Superintendent. The Superintendent marked the file to AEO on 17.02.2020 and in the meanwhile there was re-shuffling of the Estate Officers working in GMADA and after joining of the Estate officer concerned, the sanction order was signed on 20.02
AI
The need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 to advance substantial justice and the importance of public interest in cases involving the government.
The court emphasized the importance of substantive rights of the people and held that when technicalities of the procedural law are pitted against rights of private parties, the former should yield t....
Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if justifiable reasons are presented, emphasizing procedural fairness and allowing the case to be heard on merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 and the Limitation Act require the demonstration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the di....
Refusal to condone delay in appeal under Real Estate Act is upheld absent evidence of procedural irregularity.
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
