Partly allowed

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018WP/6949/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Provisions concerning limitation for appeals under the Railway Protection Force Act were considered. The High Court held that dismissing the appeal without first granting an opportunity to explain the delay was unjustified. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was allowed to file an application for condonation of delay within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay within four weeks for consideration on merits.

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil Vs the Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Sr100 WP6949.2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2017

¶4

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil … Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr Manish Navandar, Advocate for respondents

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 15^TH JANUARY, 2018.

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.

¶12

The petitioner was found guilty of the charges in the Departmental Enquiry and punishment was imposed upon the petitioner reducing pay scale to the lowest for two years. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal is not entertained on the ground that it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

¶13

2 Sr100 WP6949.2017

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was transferred to Khandwa, the petitioner could not submit the appeal in time. The appeal was submitted to Inspector, Jalgaon Thana, who forwarded it to respondent no. 3 to be presented to respondent no. 4. According to learned counsel, the appeal of the petitioner has not been entertained on merits and it has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The petitioner be given an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay stating the grounds for the delay.

¶15

Mr Navandar, the learned counsel for respondents submits that, as per Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 the petitioner has to file an appeal within 30 days. There was a delay of 2½ months. No reasons were given. As such, the authority has rightly passed the order.

¶16

It appears that the petitioner did not file an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal showing sufficient cause for not filing appeal within limitation as required u/s 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act. Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 9 empowers the authority to entertain the appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by

¶17

3 Sr100 WP6949.2017

¶18

sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

¶19

The present petitioner along with the appeal did not file an application for condonation of delay and put forth his grounds for delay. We deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to put forth grounds for delay before the appellate authority.

¶20

In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to file an application for condonation of delay putting forth the grounds for delay. The appellate authority shall thereafter consider the grounds put forth by the petitioners for delay and take decision upon it on its own merits. The application shall be filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today.

¶21

The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. No costs.

¶22

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

Punde

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirupati Bandu Renewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Suryabhan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Ashwin Tractors through Its Proprietor Ashwin Shantaram Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Tukaram Warangale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mamta Pandurang Nimje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others