Delhi High Court
Dharam Vir Singh vs The Municipal Corp. Of Delhi on 14 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14.09.2012
W.P.(C) 5761/2012
DHARAM VIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Piyush Sharma
For the Respondent : Ms Mini Pushkarna.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.
No.1865/2011 whereby the petitioner's said application was rejected, inter
alia, on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner has candidly stated before us that the order that was
impugned before the Tribunal was the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the
appellate authority. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that initially he had challenged that order by virtue of a writ
petition being WP(C) No.6300/2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn by
the order dated 23.10.2008 wherein the petitioner had informed the learned
Single Judge that he would be filing a statutory appeal. The fact that he had
already filed a statutory appeal and that the same had been disposed of by
virtue of the said order dated 24.10.2007 and that there was no provision for
second statutory appeal was not disclosed before the learned Single Judge.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioner, for reasons best known to him, filed a
second appeal on 26.10.2008. According to the petitioner, since that was not
heard and disposed of, he filed an application before the Tribunal being O.A.
No.1120/2010 which was disposed of at the admission stage itself on
08.04.2010, directing the respondent therein to decide the petitioner's
"appeal" by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three
months. Before the Tribunal, also, the petitioner had not disclosed that his
appeal had already been decided by virtue of the order dated 24.10.2007.
Thereafter the petitioner again filed an application being O.A. No.3651/2010
which the petitioner sought to withdraw on 15.03.2011 with liberty to file a
better application. That so called better application was O.A. No.1865/2011
in which the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 has been passed whereby the
Tribunal has rejected the same, inter alia, on the ground that the application
was barred by time.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue the case of the
petitioner by referring to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 and in particular Section 21(2)(a) thereof. He submitted that the
starting point of limitation was not the date of the impugned order of
24.10.2007. This, according to him, was so because the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) stood transferred to the Central
Administrative Tribunal on 15.12.2008. Consequently, the provisions of
Section 21(2)(a) would be applicable and not Section 21(1)(a). But, we do
not see as to how that would be of any help to the petitioner. In order to
appreciate this it would be necessary to examine the provisions of Section 21
of the said Act, which, to the extent relevant, read as under:-
"21. Limitation.-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause
(a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in
connection with the grievance unless the application is
made, within one year from the date on which such final
order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is
mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has
been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter
without such final order having been made, within one year
from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had
arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the
period of three years immediately preceding the date on
which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal
becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter
to which such order relates ; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been
commenced before the said date before any High Court,
the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made
within the period referred to in clause (a), or , as the case may
be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six
months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) x x x x x"
5. We may recall that the jurisdiction with regard to the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) stood transferred to the Central Administrative
Tribunal w.e.f. 15.12.2008. In this context, a plain reading of Section
21(2)(a), which would be applicable to the case of the petitioner, would
indicate that the petitioner had six months time w.e.f. 15.12.2008 to
challenge the order dated 24.10.2007 because that was the 'later' date as
indicated in Section 21(2), the said order dated 24.10.2007 having been
passed within the preceding three years of the date of transfer of jurisdiction.
By virtue of this provision orders passed in the preceding three years could
be challenged within six months of the date of transfer of jurisdiction or
within the period stipulated in Section 21(1)(a), whichever period expired
later. Had Section 21(2) not been there, the application would have had to be
filed under Section 21(1)(a) within one year from the date of the final order,
that is, the appellate order dated 24.10.2007. In other words, the application
would have to be filed before the Tribunal by 24.10.2008. But, because the
jurisdiction was transferred on 15.12.2008 the petitioner would get the
benefit of the non-obstante provisions of Section 21(2)(a). And, because of
that, he could file the application within a period of six months from the date
of transfer of jurisdiction, that is, within six months from 15.12.2008.
Unfortunately for the petitioner the said original application was filed only in
2011, that is, well beyond the period of limitation which expired on
15.06.2009.
6. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal was correct
in holding that the petitioner's said original application was barred by time.
The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
mk
