APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA- ND- 773/DLI/2023 Shri Jaspal Singh … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the appellant : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Adv.

Mr. Vasu Kalra, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. Sachin Rathore, proxy counsel for Jeetendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. G. N. Mishra, Inspector CORAM SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

21.02.2024 The present appeal has been filed under the signature of Smt.

Kulwinder Kaur, who is the wife of Shri Jaspal Singh (Appellant) with an admitted delay of 136 days. Along with Appeal an application for Condonation of Delay (CoD) has been filed to condone delay of 136 days in filing the Appeal. In the Application for CoD, it is, inter-alia, pleaded that the copy of the impugned Order dated 05.06.2023 is received by the wife of the Appellant on 25.06.2023 and that wife of the Appellant is a rustic villager, whose husband is in custody and having minor children and there is no other person in her family to look after the affairs of her house, therefore, being lone lady, the wife of the Applicant was not aware about her legal rights to challenge the impugned Order before the Appellate Tribunal and that the State of Punjab suffered a lot on account of climatic disaster, resulting which, the residential area of the Applicant remain flooded for a long while and that when she ( Smt. Kulwinder Kaur) approached the present counsel then only she came to know the fact that she has a right to challenge the impugned Order before this Tribunal, therefore, without wasting any further period, the present case is filed.

2. Heard, both the parties on the point of limitation. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued on the point of limitation reiterating what is pleaded in the appeal and the application for the CoD and submitted that in the interest of justice, the application for CoD may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 appearing through Shri G.N. Mishra, Inspector orally submitted that as admitted by the Appellant there is a delay of 136 days in filing the appeal and that according to the proviso to Section 68O (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Tribunal has no power to condone delay, if the appeal is filed after 60 days from the date of service of the impugned Order and that admittedly, there is a delay of 136 days in filing the appeal, which is much more than the period of 60 days, hence, the delay cannot be condoned irrespective of any ground taken by the Appellant. So, the application for CoD is liable to be dismissed along with the appeal.

4. Heard the Ld. counsel for the Appellant and Shri G.N. Mishra, Inspector appearing for the Respondent CA and also peruse the material available on record.

5. The impugned Order has been passed in which Shri Jaspal Singh was one of the affected persons at serial no. 5 and the property involve is one Nissan Micra Diesel Car bearing Registration No. PB-10-EB-4867. The appeal has been filed in the name of Shri Jaspal Singh signed by his wife Smt. Kulwinder Kaur. It is important to be noted here that there is nothing in the pleadings of the Appellant that the Appellant Shri Jaspal Singh has not been served with impugned Order nor there is any date has been specified regarding service of the impugned Order on him. In the absence of any such plea in writing or otherwise the date of impugned Order is taken as date of service of the impugned Order. In that case the date of impugned Order is dated 05.06.2023. The statutory period for filing the appeal is 45 days under Section 68 O (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which expired on 20.07.2023. This Tribunal is empowered to condone delay if the appeal is filed within 60 days from the date of the service of the impugned Order, which expired on 04.08.2023. The appeal is filed on 04.12.2023, which is 182 days from 05.06.2023 i.e. the date of passing and service of the impugned Order.

6. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur st