The Tribunal has no power to condone delay beyond sixty days as per Section 68-O(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

FINAL ORDER

30.01.2025 The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 05.08.2024passed by the Ld. Competent Authority &Administrator [SAFEM(FOP)] Act, 1976 and NDPS Act, 1985 Delhi. Along with the appeal an application for Condonation of Delay (CoD) has been filed to condone delay of 27 days in filling the appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order is passed on 05.08.2024and the same has been served on the appellant on 17.08.2024and that the appeal has been filed by the appellant on28.10.2024. The appellant has taken the ground that he did not have any knowledge regarding the passing of order and took time arranging documents from the revenue department that caused delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.

Admittedly, the date of receiving the copy of the impugned order dated 05.08.2024is 17.08.2024and 45 days for filling the appeal has expired on 01.10.2024 and 60 days expired on16.10.2024. This Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone delay up to 60^th day from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order which expired on16.10.2024 and the appeal is filed on28.10.2024. According to the appellant there is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal from the date of expiry of 45^th day.

As per Section 68-O(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 an appeal to this Tribunal against the order made under 68-F (2) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is to be filed within 45 days and as per proviso to the said section this Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the said period of 45 days, but not after 60 days, from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time.

Since the appeal has been filed after 60 days i.e.

on28.10.2024, this Appellate Tribunal is statutorily not empowered to condone delay of even one day. The aforesaid view of ours is supported with judgments passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court in the following matters: -

i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ONGC v/s Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Others in civil no.

1315 of 2010 reported in 2017 SCC online SC 223.

ii) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 23 .

iii) Fair Growth Investments Limited v/s Custodian reported in (2004) 11SCC 472.

iv) In a recent judgement, His Lordship of Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, vide Order dated 18.10.2023 in the matter of W. P. (C) 12677/2023 and CM APPL. 49965/2023 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Suman Kumar Rana- in jail vs. Competent Authority by upholding the judgement and Order passed by this Tribunal on 11.07.2023.

With a view to consider and appreciate the arguments in its proper perspective, the object, purport and the scope of proviso to Section 68(0)(1) needs to be examined. Exclusion can be implicit or explicit. It depends upon the language used in a particular statute. The intention can only be gathered from the expression contained in the statute. The proviso to Section 68(O)(1) has created an absolute bar on this Tribunal for condonation of delay beyond sixty days. The expression “not after sixty days” does not permit this Tribunal any further extension and it seems that the true import, purport and construction of the proviso is to restrict the total period of limitation to 60 days, i.e. 45 days principal and 15 days by extension subject to existence of sufficient cause in a given case. Any other interpretation would amount to committing violence to the statute itself which is impermissible under law.

Considering the relevant facts, provision of law and judgments noted above, it is held that this Tribunal has no power even to condone a single day delay after sixty days from the date of service of impugned order on the appellant. In view of the discussions made above, the Application for CoD is dismissed, consequently, the Appeal and t