M/S. S. D. Eastern Bhutan Coal Co. ... vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2360 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010101782021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : MFA/170/2021

            M/S. S. D. EASTERN BHUTAN COAL CO. LTD.,
            SAMDRUO JONGKHAR, EAST BHUTAN, BRANCH OFFICE AT SOHEL
            NIWAS, 3RD FLOOR, CHATRIBARI ROAD, GUWAHATI-1, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
            GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781011.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K P MAHESWARI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Appellant : Ms. N. Haque, Advocate.

             For the Respondents:             Mr. B. Sharma,
                                              S.C., N.F. Railway.

              Date of Hearing        :        30.05.2023.
                Date of Judgment :            05.06.2023.
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3



                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Ms. N. Haque, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway.

2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Misc. Application No.MA/GHY/2013/0029.

3. The appellant filed the claim application after a delay of 8 months and 8 days. Therefore, the applicant prayed for condonation of delay and the Tribunal refused to condone the delay. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is quoted as under:

"12. A very liberal period of three years has been provided for submission of claim application. Though a delay of few weeks due to illness of the counsel's father is understandable, but delay of maximum 08 months 08 days, over and above three years prescribed under the Rule, that too on the admitted fact of oversight, is in no way can be considered sufficient grounds for condonation of delay."

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels of both sides.

5. This Court has already settled that the period of three months from the last date of filing claim application is a reasonable period for exercising due diligence, by making inquiries with his/her/their counsel. It is also settled by this Court that any period beyond three months from the last date of filing cannot be considered to be reasonable for Page No.# 3/3

condonation of delay as the same would negate the provisions of Sections 17(2) of the Act of 1987 and tantamount to legislation by this Court.

6. In the case in hand, the claim application was not filed within three months due to oversight. I find that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the provisions of law and correctly refused to condone the delay.

7. Under the said circumstances, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant