The period for re-filing an application does not commence until the registry of a tribunal communicates procedural defects to the applicant. In the absence of such communication, and where initial filings fall within extended limitation periods, the delay in re-filing cannot be held against the litigant.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Civil Procedure - Tribunal procedure - Delay and laches - Condonation of delay - Petitioner challenged an order directing a review application to be listed for hearing - Contention that the application was barred by limitation due to significant delay in curing defects - Registry of the tribunal had not communicated existing defects to the applicant due to restricted operations during a pandemic - Held, where the registry fails to communicate defects, the limitation period for re-filing does not commence - No requirement for condonation of delay when the initial filing falls within the extended periods granted by the apex court. (Paras 11, 13)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Appellate court should not exercise powers of interference when the lower forum has exercised its discretion based on uncontroverted facts - Absence of a reply to specific averments regarding non-communication of defects by the registry leads to an admission of those facts, precluding the appellate authority from questioning the validity of the tribunal's order. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
A review application was filed before a tribunal against a judgment, but it remained pending due to procedural defects. The petitioner argued that the application was barred by time and that the tribunal incorrectly allowed it to be listed for hearing on merits. The respondent contended that they were never informed of the defects by the registry and that the original filing was protected under extended limitation periods granted during the pandemic.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondent’s assertion regarding the non-communication of defects by the registry was never traversed by the petitioner, thus becoming an admitted fact. Furthermore, the court noted that the initial filing was within the extended time frame provided by the apex court for proceedings affected by the pandemic. Therefore, the registry was at fault for failing to progress the matter, and the tribunal correctly allowed the application to be listed.

Issues: Whether the tribunal erred in allowing a review application to proceed despite an alleged delay in curing procedural defects and whether the failure of the registry to notify the parties of such defects justifies the condonation of the re-filing delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a registry of a quasi-judicial body fails to communicate procedural defects to a party, the period for re-filing does not commence, rendering objections regarding delay invalid. Appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary orders where facts regarding procedural lapses by the registry remain uncontroverted.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and the timeline of filing applications/appeals during the pandemic. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. burden of responsibility for registry-noted defects and communication during restricted court operations. (Para 11 , 12)
3. application of covid-19 related limitation extensions and standard of review for procedural defects in filing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. OA 3689/2015, filed by the petitioner against the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and the Union Public Service Commission [“UPSC” hereafter], was disposed of, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, [“Tribunal” hereafter] by judgment dated 23 June 2021, with a direction to the UPSC to exercise its discretion under Rule 15 of the Ministry of Statistical Services Examination Rules, 2015 [wrongly referred to in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Tribunal as “the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995”] in favour of Physically Handicapped category candidates, [“Physically Handicapped” hereinafter] on the lines adopted in the case of Indian Engineering Service, Geo Scientists and Geologists.

2. For the purposes of the present appeal, we are not concerned with the merits of the dispute between the parties.

3. RA 59/2023 was filed by the UPSC, seeking review of the aforenoted judgment dated 23 June 2021. The RA was filed on 2 December 2021 by e-mail as, owing to the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic, physical filings were not taking place at that time.

4. The RA remained pending with the Registry of the Tribunal. In the interregnum, the petitioner filed CP 87/2022 before the Tribunal, alleging contumacious disobedience with the directions contained in the judgment dated 23 June 2021 passed in the OA.

5. Mr. Pankaj Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the contempt petition was listed on several occasions and that the Tribunal was never apprised of the fact that the UPSC had filed an RA which was languishing in the Registry. The Registry had apparently raised certain objections in the RA. The objections were removed by the UPSC on 24 April 2023.

6. On 5 March 2025, the following order came to be passed by the Tribunal:

“Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, opposes the RA No. 59/2023 filed by the respondents. He submits that the Tribunal had decided the OA on 23.06.2021. As per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 30 days’ time was available to the Respondents for filing of the Review Petition. The instant RA was filed on 02.12.2021. Even thereafter, the RA was not listed and it seems that the same was lying under objection. Accordingly, he submits that the RA deserves to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the RA came to be filed on 02.12.2021 and is within the limitation as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the suo moto case concerning similar matters since it was filed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Further, the RA came to be re-filed on or about 11.04.2023, accordingly, he seeks to file an appropriate application seeking directions in this regard. Let the necessary steps be taken by the respondents within a period of four weeks.

4. List on 15.05.2025”

7. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Tribunal, MA 3097/2025 came to be filed. The MA came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 9 December 2025. The petitioner vociferously contested the MA, submitting that it was grossly barred by time and that the MA deserved to be dismissed both on the ground of delay in filing of the RA as well as delay in re-filing of the RA. It was also pointed out that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the UPSC, and that even for that reason, the MA as well as, consequently, the RA, deserved to be dismissed.

8. By order dated 6 January 2026, under challenge in the present writ p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document