Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 127
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Mudholkar
RAJNANDGAON BUS SERVICE CO – Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER RULE 73 OF THE C P AND BERAR MOTOR VEHICLE RULES, 1940 AND ANR – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 of 1952
Decided on : 12-11-1952
R K Verma, S P Pathak, T P Naik, Advocates
Importance of filing applications within a reasonable time and burden of proof on the applicant for any delay.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Delay in Filing Application - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The application was dismissed due to being filed too late, beyond the 45-day period of limitation, without sufficient reasons for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application was filed beyond the reasonable time limit and that no sufficient reasons were provided for the delay.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the application beyond the prescribed time limit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of filing applications within a reasonable time and placed the burden on the applicant to show sufficient reasons for any delay.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed with a hearing fee imposed on the non-applicants.
1. This application must be dismissed 'in limine' on the ground that this Court was moved too late. The order impugned in this case was passed on 16th April 1951, and the application was not filed in this Court until 26th April 1952, when the Court was closing for the long vacation, and was not heard in motion until 21st July 1952. When we admitted this application we were not apprised of the delay. The office should have drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the application was rather stale. Though no period of limitation has been prescribed for an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, yet ordinarily it must be made as soon as any threat to any right is there. Even an application in the ordinary revisional jurisdiction of this Court has got to be made within 45 days of the order moved against. We would, therefore, in the ordinary circumstances adhere to that rule, viz., that if an application has not been made' within 45 days of the order impugned, it shall be deemed not to have been made with due diligence, and any applicant moving this Court beyond that time will have the burden on him of showing that in spite of due diligence the Court could not have been moved earlier.
2. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that he was advised by Counsel that a demand must be made on the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. Assuming that that advice was given and was correctly given, the demand was made in June 1951, and there is no explanation why the Petitioner waited for another 10 months or so before he thought of moving this Court. In our opinion, therefore, no sufficient reasons have been made out overlooking all this long delay.
3. The application is therefore dismissed. Hearing fee Rs. 50-0-0, to be divided half and half between the two non-applicants.
Final Result : Dismissed
