Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three writ petitions filed by Ashok Govind Naik, Sameer S. Naik, and Suranga Savlo Naik against the Village Panchayat of Marcaim and Bholu V. Naik. The petitioners challenged three orders dated 12/02/2015 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, rejecting their applications 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 was 3 years and 7 months. The petitioners argued that they were pursuing remedies before the wrong forum, but the court found that the explanation was not satisfactory as the petitioners were aware of the correct forum and the delay was inordinate. The court held that the Adhoc District Judge did not err in rejecting the condonation applications. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court considered whether the delay of 3 years and 7 months in filing revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was sufficiently explained. The petitioners claimed they were pursuing remedies before the wrong forum, but the court held that the explanation was not satisfactory as the petitioners were aware of the correct forum and the delay was inordinate. (Paras 5-8)
B) Limitation - Wrong Forum - Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court noted that the petitioners had filed appeals before the wrong forum and later sought to file revisions, but the period spent before the wrong forum cannot be excluded unless the conditions of Section 14 are met. The court found that the petitioners did not act with due diligence and the delay was not condonable. (Paras 6-8)
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, on the ground that the delay of 3 years and 7 months was not sufficiently explained.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Adhoc District Judge rejecting the applications for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 115
Writ Petition Nos.278, 279 and 280 of 2015
A. Bhobe for petitioner, P. Kamat for respondent no.1, S. Dhargalkar for respondent no.2
Ashok Govind Naik, Sameer S. Naik, Suranga Savlo Naik
Village Panchayat at Marcaim, 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
The petitioners sought to challenge the orders dated 12/02/2015 rejecting their applications for condonation of delay, and to have the delay condoned so that their revision applications could 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 revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, but there was a delay of 3 years and 7 months.
Previous Decisions
The Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, rejected the applications for condonation of delay in Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.82, 80 and 81 of 2014 on 12/02/2015.
Issues
Whether the delay of 3 years and 7 months in filing revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was sufficiently explained.
Whether the Adhoc District Judge erred in rejecting the applications for condonation of delay.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the delay was caused because they were pursuing remedies before the wrong forum, and therefore the delay should be condoned.
The respondents contended that the delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained, and the petitioners were aware of the correct forum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the delay of 3 years and 7 months was inordinate and the explanation that the petitioners were pursuing remedies before the wrong forum was not sufficient cause for condonation, as the petitioners were aware of the correct forum and did not act with due diligence.
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.
The Revisions were sought to be filed by the petitioner as the petitioner in all these three Writ Petitions felt aggrieved by allowing of the Appeals of the respondent no.2, by the Additional Director.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed revision applications under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, before the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, along with applications for condonation of delay. The Adhoc District Judge rejected the condonation applications on 12/02/2015. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: Section 201-B
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5, Section 14
