Ignorance of law by educated applicant not sufficient cause to condone 7-year delay under S.21 Administrative Tribunals Act.

ORDER

1.The applicant has filed MA No.1461/2023 in OA No.1154/2023 for condonation of delay of 3 and % years as impugned order under challenge was passed on 26.08.2016.

2. It has been submitted in the application for condonation of delay that the applicant, being a layman, was not aware of the steps to be taken for challenging the impugned order, thereby, there being no proper advise received within time for filing the OA, that after passing of the impugned order i.e. on 26.08.2016, the applicant was not having knowledge to challenge the said order. However, in the month of October, 2018, he met his friend, who is practicing Advocate and narrated the above fact to him. The friend of the Advocate advised him to challenge the present order before the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, the friend of applicant drafted Writ Petition in the month of January, 2019 and when he visited the office of the Hon’ble High Court, the concerned clerk who was present in the office of the Hon’ble High Court and by looking OA No.1154/2023 to the impugned order, the clerk of Hon’ble High Court advised the applicant not to challenge the present matter before the Hon’ble High Court and advised him to challenge the same before this Tribunal.

2.1 The applicant had approached th present counsel who after perusing the whole brief, informed the applicant for collecting some more documents such as no objection letters and scheme. That applicant after 6 months i.e. in month of October visited the office of the present counsel for drafting and finalizing the original application. That, as there was Diwali Vacation, the present counsel went out of town for about 15 days and after returning back to Nagpur, due to some other urgent matters, the present counsel was unable to draft the original application. Later on, the present counsel shifted his office to another place and in shifting some files of the present counsel got missed in which the original file of the applicant was also there. That, after searching the same, the present counsel finally found the file in disposal and after getting the same on 08.12.2019, the present counsel finally started drafting the OA OA No.1154/2023 alongwith delay application. Therefore, th delay occasioned in filing the OA is not intentional but has occasioned due to abov mentioned reasons. The applicant tenders apology for the delay caused in filing the present OA and prays for condonation of delay in filing the OA and to hear and decide the matter on merits.

3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the MA. It has been submitted that the applicant was informed about the decision of the CRC vide letter No.RE/4-1/64/2014 dated 26.08.2016. The application has been filed by the applicant in the year 2023 and thus there is inordinate delay of more than 5 years. It has been submitted that the applicant has not explained the delay properly and, hence, the MA is liable to be dismissed. It has been submitted that the applicant has filed MA for condonation of delay without explaining any proper reason for delay of more than 5 years in filing the OA and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not aware OA No.1154/2023 about the rule of limitation as there was no proper advise available to him and it took time in locating the Advocate and Advocate also took sometime. Therefore, the delay has been caused and, therefore, the MA should be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that ignorance of law is not an excuse. He further submitted that it can be seen from the OA that the applicant himself