Back
2007 Supreme(MP) 1084
2008(1) JLJ 23
(SPECIAL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, A.K. Gohil, Subhash Samvatsar
and Rajendra Menon, JJ.
State of M.P. and another v. Mis. Shekhar Constructions
Civil Revision No. 142 of 2005 (Gwalior): on reference by Division Bench and Full Bench; Decided on 2.11.2007.
S.B. Mishra, Additional Advocate General with Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate, M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, B.S. Bhadauriya, D.S. Raghuvanshi and Gaurav Samadhiya for petitioners; Ankur Mody, Vijay Sunderam and Deependra Raghuvanshi for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) -- S.19 -Limitation Act, 1963 -- S.5 -- revision petition under S.19 of Adhiniyam -- Limitation Act is not applicable -- delay cannot be condoned -- Court can exercise suo motu powers of revision -- as such can entertain the same within reasonable time after limitation of 3 months expires.
A Division Bench hearing the Civil Revision No.142/2005 [State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. M/s. Shekhar Construction] expressed its doubt with regard to the correctness of the ‘decision rendered in Civil Revision No.1/2006 [State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. M/s. Shriram and sons], and referred two questions to be adjudicated by a larger Bench. The two questions framed by the Division Bench are as under:
"(i) Whether after amendment in section 19 of the Adhiniyam application for extending the period of limitation in filing revision can be entertained if Court is satisfied that petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause, can be examined by the Court in cases where cause of action for filing revision is accrued to the petitioner under the unamended provision of section 19 and period of limitation is expired before the amendment in the Adhiniyam?
(ii) Whether the application to condone the delay will be maintainable and the amended provision of section 19 of the Adhiniyam will have retrospective operation for pending petitions before the Court?"
The matter was placed before the Bench consisting of three Judges. The Full Bench while answering the question expressed its doubt with regard to the legal substantiality of the decision rendered by another Full Bench in M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur v. Pandey Construction Company [2005(2) JLJ 316=2005(2) MPLJ 550]. This led to framing of the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:
"Whether in view of section 29(2) of Limitation Act 1963, provisions of sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) will apply to the proceedings, application and revision filed under the Adhiniyam 1983, to condone delay." [Paras 1 & 2
Held : We conclude and hold that the decision rendered in Pandey Construction Co. (supra), holding that the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to a revision perfumed under section 19 of the 1983 Act is correct. Once it is so held, the question whether the Full Bench in Pandey Construction Co. (supra), should have considered the decision rendered in Mohd. Sagir (supra), pales into insignificance. We may put it on record that the decision in Mohd. Sagir (supra), was rendered in the context of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the said view in relation to the said statute will hold the field.
Be it placed on record, in the case of Pandey Construction Co. (supra), the Full Bench has expressed the opinion that the High Court can exercise the power of revision suo motu and call for the records and award from the Tribunal and such a power can be exercised within a reasonable period of time considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. The said view is in accord with the language employed under section 19 of the 1983 Act and hence, we concur with the same. 2005(2) JLJ 316 (FB) and 2003(II) MPWN 152 confirmed, 2004(2) JLJ 18 (FB) relied on. 2004(11) MPJR 374 (SC), (2003)2 SCC 577, (2001)8 SCC 470, (2002)8 SCC 361, (2002)3 SCC 202, AIR 2003 SC 1455, (2004)9 SCC 100 and (1993)3 SCC 114 followed. [Paras 16 & 17
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226/227 -- Court should refrain and restrain itself from answering academic issues. (1997)8 SCC 31 and AIR 1960 SC 378 followed.
[Para 4 & 5
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.141 -- leave to appeal refused by reasoned order -- statement of law contained in order is a declaration of law under this article -- finding recorded therein binds every Court in subsequent proceedings -- High Court cannot declare a decision of Supreme Court is per incuriam. 2005(2) JLJ 316 (FB) relied on. [Para 8
¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 19 && ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 5 && 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k && ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ykxw ugha && foyac ekQ ugha fd;k tk ldrk && U;k;ky; Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr dj ldrk gS && bl izdkj 3 ekl dh ifjlhek ds i‘pkr~ ;qfDr;qDr le; ds Hkhrj iqujh{k.k xzg.k dj ldrk gSA
flfoy iqujh{k.k Ø-142@2005 [e-iz- jkT; rFkk ,d vU; fo- es- ‘ks[kj dULVªD‘kUl] lqu jgh [kaM U;k;ihB us flfoy iqujh{k.k Ø-1@2006 [e-iz- jkT; rFkk ,d vU; fo- es- Jhjke ,.M lUl] esa fn;k x;k fu.kZ; lgh gksus ds ckjs esa viuk lansg O;Dr fd;k vkSj c`gÙkj U;k;ihB }kjk U;k;fu.khZr fd, tkus ds fy, nks iz‘uksa dk funsZ‘k fd;kA [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk fojfpr og nks iz‘u fuEukuqlkj gS %
^^¼i½ D;k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds la‘kks/ku ds i‘pkr~ iqujh{k.k Qkby djus dh ifjlhek c<+k, tkus d fy, vkosnu xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gS] ;fn U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gks tk, fd vthZnkj i;kZIr dkj.ko‘k vkosnu Qkby ugha dj ldk] U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls ekeyksa mldk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gS tgk¡ vthZnkj dks iqujh{k.k Qkby djus ds fy, okngsrqd /kkjk 19 ds vla‘kksf/kr mica/k ds v/khu izksn~Hkwr gqvk gS vkSj vf/kfu;e esa la‘kks/ku ds iwoZ ifjlhek dh vof/k dk volku gks x;k gS\
¼ii½ D;k U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr vftZ;ksa esa foyac ekQ fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu pykus ;ksX; gksxk vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds la‘kksf/kr mica/k dk izorZu Hkwy{kh gksxkA**
;g ekeyk rhu U;k;k/kh‘kksa ls xfBr U;k;ihB ds le{k j[kk x;kA iz‘u dk mÙkj nsrs le; iw.kZ U;k;ihB us ,d vU; iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk e-iz- fo|qr eaMy] tcyiqj fo- ikaMs dULVªD‘ku daiuh [2005¼2½ ts ,y ts 316¾2005¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 550] esa fn, x, fu.kZ; dh fof/kd izekf.kdrk ds ckjs esa viuk lansg O;Dr fd;kA blds ifj.kkeLo:i c`gÙkj U;k;ihB }kjk fopkjkFkZ fuEufyf[kr iz‘u fojfpr gqvk %
^^D;k ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 dh /kkjk 29¼2½ dh n`f"V ls /kkjk 4 ls 24 ¼nksuksa lfgr½ ds mica/k lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dk;Zokgh] vkosnu vkSj iqujh{k.k dks] foyac ekQ fd, tkus ds fy,] ykxw gksaxs\ ¼iSjk 1 ,oa 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjk fu"d"kZ vkSj vfHkfu/kkZj.k gS fd ikaMs dULVªD‘ku da- ¼iwoksZDr½ esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fn;k x;k fu.kZ; lgh gS fd ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds mica/k lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu izLrqr fd, x, iqujh{k.k dks ykxw ugha gksrsA ,slk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus ij ;g iz‘u fd D;k ikaMs dULVªD‘ku da- ¼iwoksZDr½ esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk es- lxhj ¼iwoksZDr½ esa fn, x, fofu‘p; ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] egRoghu gks tkrk gSA ge ;g vfHkys[k ij yk nsa fd es- lxhj ¼iwoksZDr½ dk fofu‘p; e-iz- vkS|ksfxd laca/k vf/kfu;e] 1960 ds lanHkZ esa fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk mDr dkuwu ds laca/k esa mDr n`f"Vdks.k ekU; jgsxkA
vfHkys[k ij yk;k tk, fd ikaMs dULVªD‘ku da- ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB us jk; O;Dr dh gS fd mPp U;k;ky; iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr Loizsj.kk ls iz;qDr dj ldrk gS vkSj vf/kdj.k ls vfHkys[k ,oa vf/kfu.kZ; e¡xk ldrk gS rFkk ,slh ‘kfDr ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk iqujhf{kr fd, tkus okys vkns‘k dh izd`fr ij fopkj djrs gq, ;qfDr;qDr lekof/k ds Hkhrj iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gSA mDr n`f"Vdks.k lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 eas iz;qDr Hkk"kk ds vuq:i gS blfy, ge blls lger gSaA 2005¼2½ ts ,y ts 316 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2003¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 152 iq"VA 2004¼2½ ts ,y ts 18 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 2004¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj 374 ¼,l lh½] ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 577] ¼2001½8 ,l lh lh 470] ¼2002½8 ,l lh lh 361] ¼2002½3 ,l lh lh 202] , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh lh 1455] ¼2004½9 ,l lh lh 100 rFkk ¼1993½3 ,l lh lh 114 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && U;k;ky; dks vdknfed fook|dksa ds mÙkj nsus ls fojr jguk pkfg, vkSj Lo;a dks jksduk pkfg,A ¼1997½8 ,l lh lh 31 rFkk , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 378 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 4 ,oa 5
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-141 && vihy dh btktr ldkj.k vkns‘k }kjk ukeatwj && vkns‘k eas varfoZ"V fof/k dk dFku bl vuqPNsn ds v/khu fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gS && mlesa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ ijorhZ dk;Zokfg;ksa esa izR;sd U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj gS && mPp U;k;ky; ?kksf"kr ugha dj ldrk fd mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k gSA 2005¼2½ ts ,y ts 316 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8
Misra, J.-- 1. A Division Bench hearing the Civil Revision No. 142/ 2005 [State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. M/s. Shekhar Construction] expressed its doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision rendered in Civil Revision No. 112006 [State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. M/ s. Shriram and sons], and referred two questions to be adjudicated by a larger Bench. The two questions framed by the Division Bench are as under:
"(i) Whether after amendment in section 19 of the Adhiniyam application for extending the period of limitation in filing revision can be entertained if Court is satisfied that petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause, can be examined by the Court in cases where cause of action for filing revision is accrued to the petitioner under the unamended provision of section 19 and period of limitation is expired before the amendment in the Adhiniyam?
(ii) Whether the application to condone the delay will be maintainable and the amended provision of section 19 of the Adhiniyam will have retrospective operation for pending petitions before the Court?"
2. The matter was placed before the Bench consisting of three Judges. The Full Bench while answering the question expressed its doubt with regard to the legal substantiality of the decision rendered by another Full Bench in M.P. State Electricity Board Jabalpur v. Pandey Construction Company [2005(2) JLJ 316=2005(2) MPLJ 550]. This led to framing of the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:
"Whether in view of section 29(2) of Limitation Act 1963, provisions of sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) will apply to the proceedings, application and revision filed under the Adhiniyam 1983, to condone delay."
3. That is how the matter has been placed before us. Though the reference has been couched in the aforesaid manner the principal question that is required to be answered is whether the interpretation placed on section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1983 Act") in Pandey Construction (supra), is correct or the said decision requires to be reconsidered on the basis of the- decision rendered in Mohd. Sagir v. BHEL [2004(2) JLJ 18=2004(1) MPJR 373=2004(2) MPHT 179 (FB)]
4. At the very outset we think it apt to state that in Pandey Construction (supra), the Full Bench had expressed the opinion that the decision rendered by the apex Court in Nagarpalika Parishad Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. [2004(II) MPJR 374], is a binding precedent. The decision rendered in Pandey Construction (supra), is restricted to the facet of limitation in respect of revision as provided under section 19 of the 1983 Act and nothing has been said therein with regard to the applicability of the Limitation Act in respect of a proceeding or application under the 1983 Act. It is also worth noting that the said issues do not arise in the present civil revision, for the civil revision has been filed under section 19 of the 1983 Act and the consideration, as is manifest from the factual matrix, is limited to limitation in respect of a revision prefered under the unamended provision. It is well settled in law that Court should refrain I and restrain itself from answering academic issues. In this context, we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in Central Areca Nut and Cocoa Marketting and Processing Cooperative Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others [(1997)8 SCC 31], wherein the apex Court was dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant that the High Court was not justified in dealing with the issue which was purely academic. In that context their Lordships expressed the opinion as under:
"6. In our view, the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant are liable to be accepted. The High Court had noticed that the matter had become academic and in fact, observed at the end of the judgment as follows:
Mr. Dattu, learned Government pleader, pointed out that 1977 notification had since been supersed
