Jharkhand High Court
Ram Lal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.359 of 2016
------
Ram Lal Singh, son of Late Devi Singh, resident of Village-Barion,
Panchayat-Muskedih, P.O. & P.S.-Barkatha, District-Hazaribag,
Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Revisional Authority, Department of
Forest and Environment, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro at P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-
Bokaro.
4. Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District-Bokaro.
5. Range Officer, Chas Forest Range, At, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-
Bokaro. ... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI
: Mr. Rituraj, AC to SC-VI
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated
29.07.2016 passed in connection with Forest Revision Case No.107 of 2012 by
the Revisional Authority-cum-Principal Secretary Forest, Environment and
Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi under the
Indian Forest Act.
3. The brief of the case is that the JCB machine belonging to the petitioner
was seized by the forest officers on the allegation of dozering of forest land and
BF Case no.11 of 2011 was registered. Confiscation case no.05 of 2011 was also
started by the Forest Officer/DFO, Bokaro and the said JCB Machine belonging
to the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. Being aggrieved by the order
passed by the Authorised Officer, the petitioner filed Confiscation Appeal Case
No.26 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority-cum-Collector-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, Bokaro wherein vide order dated 20.03.2012, the appeal was
allowed and the order passed by the Authorized Officer in Confiscation Case
No.05 of 2011 was set aside. Though, as per Section 52(B) of the Indian Forest
Act Bihar Amendment (1) which reads as under:-
52.B. Petition for revision before Secretary Forest and
Environ-ment Department, Government of Bihar, against the
order of the Ap-pellate Authority.-
(1) Any party to the appeal, aggrieved by final order or by
order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority,
may within thirty days of the order sought to be impugned, submit
a petition for revision to the Secretary, Forest and Environment
Department, Government of Bihar.
Explanation. In computing the period of thirty days under this sub-
section, the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of
Appellate Authority shall be excluded.
(2) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department,
Government of Bihar may confirm, reverse or modify any final
order of consequential nature passed by the Appellate Authority.
(3) Copies of the order passed in revision shall be sent to the
Appellate Authority and to the Authorised officer for compliance or
for passing such further order or for taking such further action as
may be directed by such Court.
(4) For entertaining hearing and deciding a revision under
this section, the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department,
Government of Bihar shall as far may be, exercise the same powers
and follow the same procedure as exercised and followed while
entertaining, hearing and deciding a revision under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the order
passed under this section shall be final and shall not be called in
question before the Court.
the time period for which a Revision Petition was to be filed is 30 days
from the date of the order but the revision was filed only on 25.05.2012 as is
evident from the copy of the certified copy of the order sheet which has been
annexed as annexure-6(c), but the same was allowed vide order dated
29.07.2016 by the respondent no.2; ignoring the fact that the revision
application was filed beyond the period of 30 days and that the maintainability
of the revision was objected to by the petitioner specifically by filing the
petition dated 18.12.2012, in Para-3 of which specifically this plea was taken
that the revision application cannot be entertained beyond the period of 30
days. The copy of said petition has been annexed as Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a co-
ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dhaneshwar Sao vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [2010 (1) East Cr C 378 (Jhr)] wherein it was held
by the co-ordinate bench relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sakuru vs. Tanaji reported in AIR 1985 SC 1279,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the provision of the
Limitation Act, 1963 apply only to 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 by observing thus in para-10 &
11 of the judgement and went on to hold that:-
10. Xxxxx
"After hearing both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the
conclusion that there is no substance in this appeal and that the
view taken by the Division Bench in Venkaiah's case is perfectly
correct and sound. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court in
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubli, (1970) 1 SCR 51: AIR 1969 SC 1335. Niryananda
M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1970) 1 SCR
396: (AIR 1970 SC 209) and Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan
Prasad, (1976) 2 SCR 845: AIR 1976 SC 177 that the provisions of
the Limitation Act, 1963 apply only to 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. The Collector before whom
the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under Section 90 of
the Act not being a Court, the Limitation Act, as such, had no
applicability to the proceedings before him. But even in such a
situation the relevant special statute may contain an express
provision conferring on the Appellate Authority, such as the
Collector. the power to extend the prescribed period of limitation on
sufficient cause being shown by laying down that the provisions of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to such proceed-
ings. Hence it becomes necessary to examine whether the Act
contains any such provision entitling the Collector to invoke the
provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the
delay in the filing of the appeal. The only provision relied on by the
appellant in this connection is Section 93 of the Act which, as it
stood at the relevant time, was in the following terms:
"93, Limitation-Every appeal and every application for
revision under this Act shall be filed within sixty days from
the date of the order against which the appeal or application is
filed and the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908
shall apply for the purpose of the computation of the said
period."
On a plain reading of the section it is absolutely clear that its
effect is only to render applicable to the proceedings before the
Collector, the provisions of the Limitation Act relating to
computation of the period of limitation. The provisions relating to
computation of the period of limitation are contained in Sections 12
to 24 included in Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5 is
not a provision dealing with computation of the period of limitation.
It is only after the process of computation is completed and it is
found that an appeal or application has been filed after the expiry of
the prescribed period that the question of extension of the period
under Section 5 can arise. We are, therefore. in complete agreement
with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court in
Venkaiah's case that Section 93 of the Act did not have the effect of
rendering the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
applicable to the proceedings before the Collector."
11. Thus. I do find that in absence of any specific provision
under the Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) empowering the Forest
Secretary to condone the delay, the Secretary, Forest and
Environment Department, does not have any power to condone the
delay and as such, the impugned order dated 1.4.2009 under which
Revision Case No. 41 of 2008 has been admitted after condoning the
delay is certainly without jurisdiction and hence, it is set aside.
Since JCB Machine has already been released by this Court during
the pendency, no order needs to be passed in this regard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prakash H. Jain vs. Marie
Fernandes (Ms) reported in (2003) 8 SCC 431 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that the competent authority under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act cannot be said to be "court" for any and every purpose and
that too for availing of or exercising powers under the Limitation Act, 1963 and
therein it was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there
is no such thing as any inherent power of Court to condone delay in filing
proceedings before a court/authority concerned, unless the law warrants and
permits it, since it has a tendency to alter the rights accrued to one or the other
party under the statute concerned, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for, in this writ petition, be allowed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
prayed for and this writ petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the undisputed fact remains that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
District Magistrate, Bokaro has passed the order in Confiscation Appeal no.26
of 2011 dated 20.03.2012, that before the Respondent No.2, the Revision
Petition was filed on 25.05.2012, the undisputed facts remains that on
18.12.2012, the writ petitioner filed a petition challenging the maintainability of
the revision application inter alia on the ground that the same has been filed
beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the order impugned before the
Respondent No.2-Revisional Authority. No express order has been passed by
the Revisional Authority being the Respondent No.2 for condonation of delay.
8. As already indicated above, it is a settled principle of law that the
revision cannot be filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of order
impugned and Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963, is not applicable to
proceeding before the Principal Secretary-cum-Revisional Authority under
Indian Forest Act, because such an authority is not a Court, therefore, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the Revisional Authority being the
Respondent No.2 has committed a grave illegality by entertaining the Forest
Revision Case no.107 of 2012 beyond a period of 30 days from the date of the
order impugned and passing the final order in the said Forest Revision Case
No.107 of 2012 on 29.07.2016, ignoring the petition dated 18.12.2012 filed in the
said Forest Revision Case no.107 of 2012 by the petitioner contending therein
that such a revision is not maintainable, having been filed beyond the period of
30 days from the date of the order, impugned before the Revisional Authority.
Hence, the said order dated 29.07.2016 passed in Forest Revision Case no.107 of
2012 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside.
9. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of February, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
