Municipal Commissioner Throu ... vs Deepakbhai Jethalal Pandya
2021 Latest Caselaw 5541 Guj

      C/CA/588/2021                                ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 588 of 2021

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25660 of 2020

==========================================================
       MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER THROU CHIEF FIRE OFFICER
                            Versus
                 DEEPAKBHAI JETHALAL PANDYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                               Date : 07/06/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

In the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 323 of 2013 filed by the respondents claimants, the Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) at Ahmedabad delivered judgment and award dated 29.6.2019. The applicant Municipal Commissioner through Chief Officer, AMC, Ahmedabad, intends to challenge the said judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by preferring the First Appeal. In filing of the proposed First Appeal, there has been delay of 171 days. It is to condone the said delay that the present Civil Application is filed.

2. Rule was issued by the court on 26.2.2021.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Rule is served upon the respondent No.4, however none has appeared.

C/CA/588/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

4. Explaining the delay, it is stated in the application that after the judgment and award was passed on 29.6.2019 by the Claims Tribunal, the certified copy was immediately applied on 6.7.2019. The same became available on 12.7.2019. The applicant is a Corporation which is required to undergo necessary procedure in arriving at a decision to challenge the judgment and award, it was stated. It was pleaded that the opinion of the advocate was obtained and it was in October, 2019 that the decision was taken to prefer the appeal. The necessary records were thereafter obtained. The applicant has stated that thereafter the crisis period of Covid-19 pandemic ensued and lock-down was imposed due to which further steps could not be taken until the lock-down was lifted in July, 2020.

5. All the above aspects, it was submitted, resulted into passage of time and the delay of 171 days occurred.

6. The applicant is an impersonate body. The Consumption of time was inherent as the administrative procedure was required to be undertaken.

7. The reasons supplied, could be said to be making out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 171 days. Delay is condoned.

The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI