Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
U.P. State Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Gurmeet Singh – Respondent
RERA Appeal Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2023
Delay Condonation - Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal - Indian Limitation Act of 1963, Section 5 - The court allowed the appeals and remanded them to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for being decided on merits. 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 to the latter. The court applied a liberal approach in construing the question of condonation of delay and emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal, which rejected the appeals on the ground of delay. The appellant had submitted reasons for the delay, including retirement of the Office Superintendent and illness of the Finance and Accounts officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the facts were sufficient for condoning the delay and concluded that the rejection of the appeals without recording a finding sufficiently was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay without appreciating or dismissing the reasons stated by the appellant for condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in construing the question of condonation of delay, and held that the grounds for delay should be considered and a finding with regard to sufficient cause should be arrived at in its proper spirit.
Final Decision: All the appeals were allowed, and the appeals were remanded to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for being decided on merits.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel or appellant as well as Sri Deepak Dwivedi and Sri Mohd. Murtaza Khan, learned counsel for respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid appeals are being heard and decided by this common judgment.
3. Present appeals have been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal thereby rejecting the appeals preferred by the appellants only on the ground of delay.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that respondent-complainant had preferred complaints before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority which were allowed on various dates i.e. on 14.09.2022, 27.04.2022, 19.10.2022 and 24.08.2022. Against the said orders, the appellant had preferred an appeal. There were delay in filing of the appeal by a period of 103, 242, 62, 124 days respectively and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also preferred.
5. In the application of delay, it was stated that the order of Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 27.04.2022 was communicated to the appellant on 05.05.2022. Subsequently legal opinion was taken form their counsel which was received in May, 2022 itself. It has further been stated that in the meanwhile the Office Superintendent of Trans Ganga City Office retired on 31.07.2022 and due to the said vacancy, the papers could not be processed. It has further been stated that unfortunately, the Finance and Accounts officer, posted in Trans Ganga Office had suffered from heart Attack on 03.09.2022 due to which he proceeded on leave till November, 2022 and consequently the papers could not be processed for filing appeal. It has further been submitted that it is during the aforesaid period, a similar appeal being Appeal No. 84 of 2022 (UPSIDA vs. Ankur Gupta) was pending before before the Tribunal was decided on 31.08.2022 and legal opinion was sought for preferring a second appeal before this Court and after grant of approval, the appeal was filed before the High Court which was entertained and subsequently the said counsel was directed to file all the remaining appeals before the appellate tribunal. It was submitted that there has been some delay or the delay has been duly explained for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant and consequently the said appeal ought to have been condoned by the appellate tribunal.
6. It has been submitted that wherever contested or disputed by the respondent the facts asserted by the appellant in support of his application for condonation of delay should have been heard and consequently the appellate tribunal should have condoned the delay.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is accordingly admitted on following substantial question of law:
8. With the consent of learned counsels, this Court proceeds to decide the matters finally.
9. It is noticed that the appeals were filed by the appellant against the orders passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority on various dates and the delay in filing the said appeals ranged from 62 to 242 days. The appellant had made specific assertions and had submitted following facts, namely:
(b) The Office Superintendent of Trans Ganga City Office retired on 31.07.2022 and thereafter no successor was appointed and due to the said vacancy there was delay in processing to file an appeal.
(c) That Finance and Accounts officer, posted in Trans Ganga Office had suffered from heart attack on 03.09.20
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....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and the protection of....
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.
Limitation - Condonation of delay - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribe and Courts have no power to extend p....
Though the Courts are required to weigh scale of balance of justice in respect of both the parties, the said principle cannot be given a total good-bye in the name of liberal approach.
The Court must balance the need for substantial justice against the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines, requiring satisfactory explanations for delays.
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
