Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Goa disposed of three writ petitions (WP Nos. 278, 279, and 280 of 2015) by a common order, challenging three separate orders dated 12/02/2015 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa. The impugned orders rejected the applications filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing Revision Applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The revisions were sought to be filed against the allowing of appeals of respondent no.2 by the Additional Director. The delay involved was about 4 years. The petitioners argued that the delay was due to the pendency of other proceedings and other reasons, but the court found that the explanation was not sufficient. The court held that the discretion exercised by the lower court in rejecting the condonation applications was proper and did not warrant interference. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court must consider whether the party has shown sufficient cause for the delay; mere pendency of other proceedings or lack of diligence does not constitute sufficient cause. Held that the delay of about 4 years in filing revision applications was not satisfactorily explained, and the lower court's rejection of condonation was justified (Paras 3-5).
B) Goa Panchayat Raj Act - Revision - Limitation - Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - The revision applications under this provision must be filed within the prescribed period; the power to condone delay is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Held that the Adhoc District Judge did not err in rejecting the condonation applications as the petitioners failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Adhoc District Judge erred in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay in filing revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, when the delay was about 4 years and the explanation was found insufficient.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- Discretion of court
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 114
Writ Petition Nos. 278, 279 and 280 of 2015
Mr. A. Bhobe for petitioners, Mr. P. Kamat for respondent no.1, Mr. S. Dhargalkar for respondent no.2
Ashok Govind Naik (WP 278/2015), Sameer S. Naik (WP 279/2015), Suranga Savlo Naik (WP 280/2015)
Village Panchayat at Marcaim through its Secretary, Bholu V. Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders rejecting applications for condonation of delay in filing revision applications under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the orders dated 12/02/2015 rejecting their condonation applications and to allow the revision applications to be heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the allowing of appeals of respondent no.2 by the Additional Director and sought to file revisions under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, but there was a delay of about 4 years.
Previous Decisions
The Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa rejected the condonation applications on 12/02/2015.
Issues
Whether the Adhoc District Judge erred in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay in filing revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the delay was due to pendency of other proceedings and other reasons, and that the lower court should have condoned the delay.
Respondents argued that the delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained, and the lower court's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion exercised by the lower court in rejecting the condonation applications was proper as the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of about 4 years. The High Court found no error in the impugned orders warranting interference.
Judgment Excerpts
These writ petitions challenge three orders dated 12/02/2015 separately passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.82, 80 and 81 of 2014 by the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the Revision Applications under Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act before the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa, along with applications for condonation of delay. The Adhoc District Judge rejected the condonation applications on 12/02/2015. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 201-B
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
