( 1. ) BY this order, 7 Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 427/2000, 429/2000, 430/2000, 431/2000, 432/2000, 446/2000 and 447/2000 are being decided, as the question raised in these appeals is common and they have been filed against a common order passed in 7 Misc. Appeals dated 19-8-99 by the Single Bench of this Court.

( 2. ) SEVEN Review Applications were filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) being Review Application Nos. 22/98, 23/98, 24/98, 25/98, 26/98, 27/98 and 29/98. It appears that before the Tribunal, the review was sought of the orders passed in the aforesaid matters which arose respectively out of O. A. Nos. 398/94, 42/95, 44/95, 45/95, 49/95, 50/95 and 47/95. All those O. As. were decided by the Division Bench of the Tribunal consisting of Shri V. Padmanabha Kedilaya, Member (Judicial) and Shri Brijendra Prasad, Member (Technical ). On the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, order was passed on 9-12-97 deciding all the O. As. in terms of compromise. The Review Applications were filed under Section 18 (3) (f) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 1987 Act) read with Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. The Tribunal has dismissed the Review Applications holding that no substantial ground to maintain the review applications arises. ( 3. ) THERE was difference of opinion between the two Members as to the dismissal of the review applications on the ground of delay. However, on merits, both the Members of the Tribunal had agreed for the dismissal of the review applications.

( 4. ) JOINTLY against the dismissal of the review applications, and against the original order dated 9-12-97, these seven Misc. Appeals were preferred before the Single Bench of this Court, all of which have been decided by the learned Single Judge by a common order dated 19-8-99. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeals on the ground that in view of Section 23 (2) of the 1987 Act, no appeal lie against the consent order.

( 5. ) AGGRIEVED by the common order dated 19-8-99 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present seven Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay and General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. All these seven appeals have been preferred on3rd July, 2000 i. e. , after lapse of approximately one year from the date of the passing of the order dated 19-8-99 by the Single Bench. Initially the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act did not accompany the appeals. The same was subsequently filed on 31-10-2000, though it appears, that the date of its typing and verification of the affidavit in support of the application is 29-8-2000. In the application, the reason for the delay mentioned is that the order was received in the office of the Chief Claim Officer on 14-2-2000. It was discussed at various stages in the office of the Chief Claims Officer between the period from 14-2-2000 to 26-8-2000. The Single Bench passed the order on 19-8-99. Certified copy was applied for on 18-1-2000 and was obtained on 4-2-2000. There is no satisfactory explanation of delay of the period from 19-8-99 to 17-1-2000 as to why the copy could not be applied for earlier. Limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is 30 days against the order of the Single Bench. But, in the instant case appeals have been filed after about a year. Thus, it is apparent that the appellants have taken the matter very lightly.

( 6. ) NOT only the appeals but Review Applications filed before Tribunal were also barred by limitation. They had been filed after about five months. The Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred after about one year. The appellants, therefore, have not been vigilant in the matter. Their conduct throughout has been negligent. They ought to know the limitation for filing the L. P. As. is 30 days. The delay culpable and enormous can