Dhanntari Nath v. State

O.J.C. No.589 of 1993

15.05.2017

 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
 Filing this writ petition in the year 1993, the petitioner has assailed the order pass
ed by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal at the instance of the petitioners on t
he ground of delay.

 Referring to the observations made in the appeal and the disclosure of the dates estab
lishing the delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ther
e was hardly a delay of less than one month and it appears, the petitioner had indicated suffi
cient grounds explaining the delay in filing the appeal and the appellate authority having fai
led in appreciating the same passed the illegal impugned order. Sri Mahana, learned counsel ap
pearing for the petitioner thus prayed for interfering in the impugned order vide Annexure-2 b
y setting aside the same.

 Learned State Counsel on the other hand, referring to the observations made in the imp
ugned order submitted that admittedly, there was delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the
re is no illegality committed by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal. Taking into
 consideration the submission made herein and looking to the information available through the
 limitation petition as well as in the impugned order, this Court finds, by filing the appeal,
 the petitioner has assailed the order passed in the regulation-II proceeding dated 18.07.1992
 and the appeal was filed on 13.11.1992. Even though there is three months delay in filing the
 appeal but for the reasons assigned for delay, it appears, the petitioner has bona fide reaso
ns for delay in filing the appeal and since the appeal involves a property right, this Court o
bserves, the appellate authority should have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merit.
 Considering the length of delay and the
bona-fide in filing the appeal at a belated stage, this Court in interfering in the impugned o
rder passed by the appellate authority sets aside the same and restores the appeal. Since the
appeal vide Regulation-II Appeal No.21/1992 is restored, this Court further directs, the same
will be heard on merit giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and will be
decided finally within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
 The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.