Bombay High Court
Krushnarao Bapurao Kale And Anor vs Union Of India Thru. Gen. Manager on 22 March, 2017
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
216-AO-142-07 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.142 OF 2007
1. Krushnarao s/o Bapurao Kale,
Aged about 45 yers, Occ. Labour
2. Chandrakala w/o Krushnarao Kale
Aged about 40 years,
Occ. Housewife.
Both resident of at present
c/o Prakash Fagoji Ukunde,
At Telankhedi, Post Satak,
Tah. Parshiwani, Dist. Nagpur. ... Appellants.
-vs-
Union of India
Through the General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai, CST. ... Respondents.
Shri S. K. Sable, Advocate for appellants.
Shri J. Shekhani, Advocate i/b Shri R. G. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : March 22, 2017
Oral Judgment :
The present appeal is directed against the order dated
30/09/2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on the claim
application preferred by the appellants. By the impugned order the claim
application has been dismissed.
216-AO-142-07 2/4
2. Shri S. K. Sable, learned counsel for the appellants, besides
assailing the impugned order on various grounds submitted that as per the
provisions of Rule 31(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1989 it was necessary for the Claims Tribunal to have passed the final
judgment within twenty one days from the date of conclusion of arguments.
He submitted that the arguments were heard by the Claims Tribunal on
10/06/2004 and the judgment has been delivered on 30/09/2004. No
reasons are indicated as required by the aforesaid Rules as to why the
proceedings could not be decided within said period. This has vitiated the
impugned order.
3. Shri J. Shekhani, learned counsel for the respondent supported
the impugned order. It was submitted by relying upon the roznama of the
proceedings that as the requisite staff was not available, the proceedings
could not be decided within the stipulated time. It is therefore submitted
that said aspect would not vitiate the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have
perused the records of the case. The following point arises for
determination:
" Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the
ground that same has been passed in contravention of Rule 31(1) of the
216-AO-142-07 3/4
Rules of 1989."
It is not in dispute that the arguments of the parties were heard
on 10/06/2004. As per provisions of Rule 31(1) of the Rules of 1989 the
Tribunal after hearing the parties has to pass an order immediately or as
soon as thereafter but not later than twenty one days from the date of
conclusion of arguments. The impugned order has been passed after more
than three months from the conclusion of hearing. It was open for the
Claims Tribunal to indicate the reasons for not delivering the judgment
within a period of twenty one days as required by Rule-31(1) of the Rules of
1989. The same not having been done, it would not be permissible to gather
the reasons for non-compliance of Rule 31(1) of the said Rules by perusing
the roznama. Considering the mandatory nature of the aforesaid provisions,
I find that this aspect has vitiated the impugned order. The point framed
stands answered accordingly.
5. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :
(i) The judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated
30/09/2004 in Claim Application No.27/0A-II/RCT/NGP/2004 is quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are restored for being adjudicated afresh by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in accordance with law. For said purpose
the parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10/04/2017.
216-AO-142-07 4/4
(iii) As the claim application was filed in the year 2004, the Claims
Tribunal shall decide the proceedings by the end of July 2017.
Appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
