Bombay High Court
Satish Balaram Jadhav And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 19 December, 2017
Bench: Ranjit More
Rane * 1/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4046 OF 2017
Satish Balaram Jadhav & Ors. .....Petitioners
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. ....Respondents
*****
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State.
CORAM :- RANJIT MORE, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
JUDG. RESD ON :- 7TH DECEMBER, 2017.
JUDG. PRON ON :- 19TH DECEMBER, 2017.
JUDGMENT (Per :- Sandeep K. Shinde, J)
1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith.
2. That vide order dated 28th June, 2017 the
petitioners were externed by respondent no.2 in exercise of
powers under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
Rane * 2/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
1951. Appeal against the order of externment was preferred
alongwith the application for condonation of delay.
Respondent no.3, the Appellate Authority rejected the delay
condonation application for want of powers on 15 th
September, 2017.
3. The order dated 15th September, 2017 is
challenged in this writ petition.
4. Heard Mr. Patil Learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Pednekar, Learned APP for the State.
5. The only question that falls for consideration is,
whether the provision of Section 5 of The Limitation Act,
1963 is applicable to the Appeal proceedings under Section
60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
6. Indisputably, Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, (hereinafter called as "the said Act") provides for a
statutory appeal, against an order made under Section 55
within 30 days from the date of such order. Sub-section 4
provides for exclusion of the time period for granting the
certified copy of the order. The said Act, does not provide
Rane * 3/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
and/or empowers the Appellate Authority to condone the
delay caused in preferring the Appeal beyond the period of 30
days.
7. Mr. Patil, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that, Section 29 sub-section 2 of The
Limitation Act, 1963, makes Sections 4 to 24 of it, applicable
when computing limitation under the special or local law
exactly in the same manner, as they would be applicable
when computing limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
He would further submit, the Maharashtra Police Act is
special/local law, but since a complete Code in the matter of
limitation, provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act
are applicable to appeal proceedings under Section 60 of the
said Act. Mr. Patil, would also submit that, the said local Act
does not expressly exclude the provisions of the Limitation
Act to the proceedings under the said Act and as such the
provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are
applicable in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the
Limitation Act. He would therefore contend, provisions of
Rane * 4/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the Appeal
proceedings under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
8. Mr. Patil, in support of his submission, has relied
on (i)Mukri Gopalan Versus. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil
Aboob Acker reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court
Cases page 5 , and (ii) Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti
Ltd. Versus. Mahabir Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., reported
in (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases page 158 .
9. Mr. Pednekar, the Learned APP, however, relied
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj s/o.
Balbhim Shelke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Others, reported in 2016 All MR (Cri) 4453 .
10. We have gone through the cited judgments. In the
case of Suraj Shelke (supra), the Division Bench of this Court
has held that the order of externment is founded on the
subjective satisfaction of the statutory authority and as such,
the duty to act judicially would be clearly excluded and the
decision would be an administrative decision as opposed to
quasi judicial decision. We are in complete agreement with
Rane * 5/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
this proposition in law and as such it is to be held that,
decision under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, is
administrative decision and the powers exercised by the
authority under Section 55 of the said Act resulting into an
externment order is not in the exercise of judicial or quasi-
judicial powers. We therefore hold, neither the Commissioner
nor the District Magistrate or the Special Officer, empowered
to hear the Appeal under Section 60 is not a 'Court'.
11. It is settled law that, the object of Section 29(2) is
to ensure that the principles contained in Sections 4 to 24 of
the Limitation Act applies to suits, appeals and applications
filed in a Court under a special or a local law, even if it
prescribes the period of limitation different from what is
prescribed in the Limitation Act, except to the extent of
express exclusion of the application or of those provisions.
. In the case of Consolidated Engineering
Enterprises V/s. Principal Secretary, Irrigation
Department and Others, reported in (2008) 7
Supreme Court Cases page 169 , the Apex Court in para-
Rane * 6/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
44 has observed thus :-
"44. It may be noticed at this juncture
that the Schedule to the Limitation Act
prescribes the period of limitation only to
proceedings in courts and not to any
proceeding before a Tribunal or quasi-judicial
authority. Consequently section 3 and section
29(2) of Limitation Act will not apply to
proceedings before Tribunal. This means that
the Limitation Act will not apply to appeals or
applications before Tribunals, unless expressly
provided." (emphasis supplied).
12. The Apex Court in Officer on Special Duty
(Land Acquisition) and Another v. Shah Manilal
Chandulal and others , reported in 1996 (1) Mh.L.J.
page 609, and in particular, paras 13 to 15 of the report, the
Apex Court has discussed and specifically dealt with section
29(2) of the Limitation Act and has finally come to the
conclusion that the authority, such as the Collector or Land
Acquisition Officer, is not a Court when he acts as a Statutory
Authority under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
Rane * 7/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
and hence provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act would
not apply, to condone the delay. Similarly, we find, the Apex
Court in Sakuru v. Tanaji reported in AIR 1985 SC
page 1279, had taken a identical view and in para 3 of the
report, held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963
apply only to the proceedings in "Courts" and not to appeals
or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi-
judicial Tribunals or executive authorities, notwithstanding
the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with
certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Codes
of Civil or Criminal Procedure.
13. Indisputably, the Maharashtra Police Act does not
provide for or empowers the Appellate Authority under
Section 60 thereof to condone the delay. Though the said Act
is a local or a special Act and even though it expressly does
not exclude the application of Limitation Act but since the
Appellate Authority is not a Court, the provision of Section 5
of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to the appeal
proceedings under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Rane * 8/8 * WP-4046-2017
19 December, 2017
th
14. That as such, the Appellate Authority has not
committed any error in dismissing the application for
condonation of delay preferred by the petitioners. In the
result, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the Rule is
discharged.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (RANJIT MORE, J)
