ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. The petitioner, without availing remedy of an appeal provided under Section 16(2) of the Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act knocked doors of the Writ Court in W.P.No.22214/2022. This Court accepting contention of the State that the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal disposed off the writ petition and relegated petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would, however, contest this petition by contending that petitioner, though reserved with liberty at the hands of this Court to prefer an appeal within four weeks, failed to avail benefit granted by this Court. Further, he would point out that as on the date of passing impugned order, the petitioner had failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and therefore, he would contend that no purpose would be served to remit the matter as the petitioner had failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay as on the date of passing of the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned AGA

5. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition by this Court, it appears that petitioner has failed to prefer an appeal within time prescribed by this Court. The Appellate Authority, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file an application seeking condonation of delay, has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is a belated appeal and the same is not supported by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The order under challenge is too hyper technical. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst.Katji and others1 has laid down illustrative contours under which an application for condonation of delay requires to be examined. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment to the following effect:

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this

1 AIR 1987 SC 1353

Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy."

7. Though there is some laxness on the part of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

8. Having taken cognizance of the facts of the case, the dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay by the Appellate Authority resists fundamental question of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice, the dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case on merits violates this fundamental principle. Though the material on record clearly reveals that petitioner failed to file an appeal within the stipulated time frame granted by this Court, it was still incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to exercise discretion and to show some indulgence particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. The dismissal of appeal on technical grounds without considering substantive issues at hand has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, in pursuit