Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa considered a writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge-I at Mapusa dated 08.07.2019, which had set aside the Additional Director of Panchayat's order dated 22.06.2017. The Additional Director had condoned a delay of 36 days in instituting an appeal and posted the appeal for final disposal. The District Judge set aside that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the condonation application, reasoning that the Additional Director had recorded the order only in the roznama and not in a separate order, that an appeal number was assigned before the condonation application was disposed of, and that the order contained no reasons. The petitioners, who were the appellants in the Panchayat appeal, sought quashing of the District Judge's order and restoration of the Additional Director's condonation order. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the delay was actually more than 60 days, that there were misstatements in the condonation application, and that the medical certificates were doubtful. They also pointed out that in the meantime respondents 1 and 2 had obtained regularization and occupancy. The High Court held that none of the District Judge's reasons were tenable. Recording an order in the roznama is not legally prohibited, and the absence of a separate order did not vitiate the condonation. Assigning an appeal number before disposing of the condonation application was a trivial procedural matter and not a substantive infirmity. The Additional Director's order was not unreasoned because it was made after hearing parties, accepted the cause shown, and referred to a precedent; elaborate reasons were not necessary. The High Court also held that the delay was 36 days after excluding the time for obtaining certified copy, and even if it were 60 days, sufficient cause had been shown through detailed reasons and medical certificates. There was no basis to find misstatements or doubt the medical certificates. The High Court emphasized that remands should not be lightly ordered as they unduly prolong litigation, and the District Judge erred in remanding instead of considering the cause shown. The High Court therefore set aside the District Judge's order and upheld the Additional Director's condonation order. However, to balance the interests of the opposite parties, the High Court directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹5,000 to respondents 1 and 2 and ₹5,000 to respondent 3 within four weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. If costs were paid, the parties were to appear before the Additional Director on 24.08.2021 at 3.00 p.m., and the Additional Director was directed to dispose of the appeal within four months from the filing of the authenticated copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Recording of Order in Roznama - No separate order required - Not mentioned - The Additional Director recorded the condonation order in the roznama, and the District Judge treated this as a defect. The High Court held there is no legal prohibition to transcribe an order in the roznama and this procedural aspect could not justify setting aside the order. (Paras 7-8) B) Condonation of Delay - Appeal Number before Condonation - Procedural Irregularity - Not mentioned - The District Judge noted that an appeal number was given before the condonation application was disposed of. The High Court held that each court or authority may have its own procedures, and absent any substantive infirmity in the order, this was not a valid ground for interference. (Para 8) C) Judicial Review - Adequacy of Reasons - Sufficiency of reasoning in condonation order - Not mentioned - The Additional Director's order was made after hearing parties, accepted the cause shown, and referred to a precedent; therefore it was not an unreasoned order merely because it lacked elaborate reasons. The District Judge erred in setting it aside. (Para 9) D) Limitation - Calculation of Delay and Sufficient Cause - Condonation of 36 days delay - Not mentioned - The High Court held that the delay was 36 days after excluding certified copy period, not over 60 days; detailed reasons and medical certificates supported sufficient cause; no misstatement was made. The District Judge should not have remanded the matter, as remands unduly prolong litigation. (Paras 11-12) E) Costs - Imposition of Costs upon Condonation - Costs to opposite parties - Not mentioned - While upholding condonation, the High Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹5,000 to respondents 1 and 2 and ₹5,000 to respondent 3 within four weeks, failing which the petition would be deemed dismissed. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge erred in setting aside the Additional Director of Panchayat's order dated 22.06.2017 condoning 36 days delay and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on procedural grounds.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The District Judge's order dated 08.07.2019 was set aside, and the Additional Director's order dated 22.06.2017 condoning the delay was upheld, subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹5,000 to respondents 1 and 2 and ₹5,000 to respondent 3 within four weeks. If costs were not paid, the petition would be deemed dismissed. If costs were paid, parties were to appear before the Additional Director on 24.08.2021 at 3.00 p.m., and the Additional Director was directed to dispose of the appeal within four months from filing of the authenticated copy of the order.
Law Points
- Delay condonation
- sufficient cause
- procedural irregularity
- remand not to be lightly ordered
- costs on condonation
- roznama order
- reasoned order
