Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by special leave filed by the State of Karnataka against a common order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated August 14, 1989, by which the Tribunal condoned delay in Application Nos. 4134-45/89. The respondents, who were teachers in the Department of Education, had availed Leave Travel Concession during the year 1981-82 but had never utilised the benefit; instead they drew the amount and used it. Consequently, recovery was made in the years 1984-86. Some affected persons filed applications before the Tribunal questioning the power of the Government to recover the amount. In August 1989, the Tribunal allowed similar claims and held that the Government could not recover the amount. Upon learning of this, the respondents filed applications in August 1989 along with an application to condone the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay under the impugned order. The core legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the power under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to condone the delay when the respondents had not given any explanation for not filing the application within the period of six months mentioned in sub-section (2). The appellant relied on the Constitution Bench decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582, contending that the Tribunal had no power to condone delay beyond six months. The Supreme Court examined Section 21 in detail. It held that sub-section (1) prescribes a limitation period of one year for grievances covered under clauses (a) and (b); sub-section (2) amplifies that limitation by providing an outer limit of six months in certain cases; and sub-section (3) contains a non obstante clause which overrides sub-sections (1) and (2). Under sub-section (3), an application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The Court clarified that no explanation is required for delay occurring within the periods prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (2); those periods are available as a matter of right. However, if an application is filed beyond those periods, the applicant must give a satisfactory explanation specifically for the delay that occurred after the expiry of the prescribed period. The Court found that the explanation offered by the respondents—that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and filed the petition immediately thereafter—was not a proper explanation at all. It did not explain why they could not avail the remedy before the expiry of the original limitation period. The Court also distinguished S.S. Rathore, noting that the question of condonation of delay under Section 21(3) did not arise in that case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in condoning the delay, allowed the appeals, and set aside the Tribunal's order, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 21(1), (2), (3) - The Tribunal has power under Section 21(3) to condone delay beyond the periods prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (2) only upon the applicant's satisfactory explanation for the delay occurring after expiry of those periods; delay within the prescribed periods requires no explanation. The respondents filed applications beyond the limitation period, and their explanation that they learned of a favourable decision in August 1989 and then filed immediately did not explain why they could not have sought redressal within the original limitation period. Held that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in condoning the delay and its order was set aside. B) Precedent - Applicability of Constitution Bench Decision - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 21 - S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582 - The Constitution Bench decision in S.S. Rathore did not consider the power of the Tribunal to condone delay under Section 21(3) after expiry of the prescribed period; it dealt with exclusion of six-month period under sub-section (3) in context of suits transferred to the Tribunal, and was therefore inapplicable to the present question of condonation of delay.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal had power to condone delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and whether the explanation offered by respondents constituted sufficient cause for condoning delay beyond the prescribed limitation period
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal condoning delay set aside; no order as to costs
Law Points
- Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985 prescribes limitation periods
- sub-section (3) contains non obstante clause allowing condonation of delay only on satisfactory explanation for delay after expiry of prescribed period
- delay within prescribed periods requires no explanation
- decision in S.S. Rathore not applicable
- mere knowledge of favourable decision and immediate filing not sufficient cause
