Disposed¶38

Sharad Bhargava v. Ncb

Delhi HC9 May 2025W.P.(CRL)/1246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: NDPS Act Section 68-O limitation; condonation of delay rejected; appeal time-barred; right to appeal statutory not inherent; COVID-19 pandemic extended limitation; Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 90-day period; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (1954) 2 SCC 20 appeal creature of statute; Article 226 jurisdiction cannot go beyond statute; Appellate Tribunal/Appellate Authority FPA-ND-489/DLI/2022; Competent Authority order 4 August 2021; appeal filed 1 June 2022; NCB respondent; Delhi High Court Sanjeev Narula J.; W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023.

What did the court decide?

Even after applying the extended 90-day period granted by the Supreme Court on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Petitioner's appeal remained time-barred under the statutory scheme of Section 68-O of the NDPS Act. ¶28

Sharad Bhargava Vs Ncb — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's appeal against the Competent Authority's order dated 4 August 2021 (filed on 1 June 2022) was within the permissible limitation period, considering the extended limitation granted on account of the COVID-19 pandemic per the Supreme Court's judgment in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020, i.e., whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting condonation of delay. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Section 68-O of the NDPS Act mandates that the Appellate Tribunal has no authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond 60 days from the date of service of the Competent Authority's order; filing is permitted within 45 days and the Tribunal may condone delay of up to 15 additional days on sufficient cause, but there is no discretion to condone any delay beyond the prescribed outer limit of 60 days.

¶29

Key takeaways

The right to appeal is statutory and not inherent (as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors.), and High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go beyond the framework of a statute.ratio¶36
In light of the clear stipulation laid down by the legislation on limitation, this Court finds no error in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order rejecting the condonation application.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023, Sharad Bhargava v. NCB, decided 09.05.2025: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Appellate Authority's order dated 28.03.2023 in FPA-ND-489/DLI/2022, which rejected condonation of delay for an appeal (filed 01.06.2022) against the Competent Authority's NDPS order dated 04.08.2021. Held: even after applying the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extended 90-day window (Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020), the appeal remained time-barred. Section 68-O NDPS Act allows filing within 45 days, condonation up to 15 further days on sufficient cause, and imposes an absolute outer limit of 60 days beyond which the Tribunal has no authority or discretion. Since the right of appeal is statutory and not inherent (Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors., (1954) 2 SCC 20), the High Court under Article 226 cannot condone delay beyond the statutory framework; no error found in the Tribunal's view; no relief granted; petition disposed of.

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023

¶4

SHARAD BHARGAVA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Atul Sahi, Mr. Suryans Aggarwal, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

NCB .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Khatri, SSC with Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Tracy Sebastian, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 09.05.2025 CRL.M.A. 14590/2025 ( for early hearing )

¶11

For the reasons and grounds stated in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of the parties, the main petition is heard today itself.

¶12

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023

¶14

The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assails order dated 28^th March, 2023¹ in FPA-ND-489/DLI/2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. The appeal was filed by the Petitioner against order dated 4^th August, 2021 passed by the Competent Authority

¶15

1 “the impugned order”

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023 Page 1 of 4

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:20:36

¶19

under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 along with an application seeking condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay was rejected.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in its interpretation of the matter. It is submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to benefit from the extended limitation period granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 . He submits that the appeal was filed on 1st June, 2022, and was therefore within the permissible time.

¶21

The Court has noted the facts and contentions of the Petitioner, however, remains unconvinced. 6. The Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order after careful examination of the matter and concluded that even after applying the benefit extended by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 , the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act. This conclusion has been rightly recorded in the impugned order, which observes as follows:

¶22

“If the period of limitation is determined from 1^st March, 2022, it expired at the end of April 2022 itself however, for the reason that Apex Court has given 90 days period for taking remedies irrespective of the statutory provisions, we have taken the period of 90 days from 1^st March for filing the appeal. There is no further direction of the Apex Court to extend the period of limitation and we cannot substitute the order of the Apex Court 30 as to permit the appeal beyond 90 days. Il Section 68(O) of the NDPS Act is looked into, the maximum period is of 60 days and appeal is not maintainable beyond that period in absence of a provision to condone the delay rather it is only upto 15 days after 45 days of the period of the Limitation. That is the maximum period for filing the appeal without discretion to condone the delay after it.

¶23

The Apex Court, however, gave 90 days period irrespective of the limitation provided under the statute and that too from 1^st March, 2022.

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023 Page 2 of 4

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:20:36

¶26

Otherwise, in the case, period of limitation started from 4th August, 2021 and under ordinary circumstances, limitation would have expired on 18^th September, 2021 and thereupon maximum period of 15 days to condone the delay on submission of proper explanation. In the light of the aforesaid we are unable to accept the application to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days.

¶27

In the light of the dismissal of the application for Condonation of Delay the delay, the appeal goes and it is also dismissed.”

¶28

As evident from the above extract, even after applying the extended 90-day period granted by the Supreme Court, the appeal remained timebarred under the statutory scheme.

¶29

As regards the question regarding this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone delay under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act, the position is no longer res integra . Section 68-O mandates that the Appellate Tribunal has no authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond 60 days from the date of service of the Competent Authority’s order. While sub-section (1) permits filing within 45 days, the Tribunal may condone delay of up to 15 additional days if sufficient cause is shown. However, there is no discretion to condone any delay beyond this prescribed outer limit of 60 days.

¶30

It is a settled principle that the right to appeal is statutory, and not inherent. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. ,² wherein the Supreme Court held that “ It is well known that an appeal is a creature of statute and there can be no inherent right of appeal from any judgment or determination unless an appeal is expressly provided for by the law itself. ”

¶31

It is equally well-settled that the High Courts while exercising

¶32

2 (1954) 2 SCC 20.

¶33

W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023 Page 3 of 4

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:20:36

¶36

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go beyond the framework of a statute. The Appellate Tribunal under the NDPS Act is a creation of statute and is vested with the power to condone delay which falls within the permissible limit of 15 days beyond the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. This can be done on the ground that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Therefore, in light of the clear stipulation laid down by the legislation, this Court finds no error in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order.

¶37

In light of the foregoing, in the opinion of the Court, having regard to the statutory provision regarding the limitation, this Court is not in a position to grant the relief sought in the present petition.

¶38

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.

¶39

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶40

MAY 9, 2025/ab

¶41

W.P.(CRL) 1246/2023 Page 4 of 4

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:20:36

Sharad Bhargava v. Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Bhargava v. Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piyush Sachdeva & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Horam & Ors. Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Bhawana Verma Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Vs State through SHO Ps Vijay Vihar & Ors.

Ahmed Adeil & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Abhishek Kaushik Vs State N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr.

Rahul & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikram Pal Vs State Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Simran Sharma Vs Sanjay Sachdeva

Arun Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Devendra Gupta Vs Intec Capital Ltd. through Its Director & Ors.

Sh Intzar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Taslima@Putti Vs the State(Nct of Delhi)