Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan Khemlo Bandekar, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa, challenging an order dated 16/10/2014 passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a Revision Application under Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966. The background of the dispute involves an order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the said Act, directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from a right of way claimed by the respondent no.2, Rajaram Khemlo Bandekar. Aggrieved by the Mamlatdar's order, the petitioner sought to file a Revision Application under Section 22 of the Act. Section 22(1) and (2) ordinarily require such revision to be preferred before the Collector, who is vested with revisional powers. However, Section 22(3) empowers the Government to authorize any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise the powers of the Collector. The petitioner consulted his lawyer, who advised him that the revision could be filed before the Deputy Collector. Acting on this advice, the petitioner's lawyer filed the Revision Application under Section 22(3) before the Deputy Collector. However, the application was filed belatedly, and the Additional Collector (who was the authorized officer) rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the bona fide mistake of his lawyer, which should be considered sufficient cause for condonation. The respondent no.2 opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was negligent. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act and the principles governing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court noted that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. The court found that the petitioner had acted on the advice of his lawyer, and the mistake was bona fide. The court held that the delay in filing the revision application was due to a bona fide mistake of the lawyer, which constitutes sufficient cause for condonation. The court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay, directing the Additional Collector to hear the revision application on merits and dispose it of within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Bona fide mistake of lawyer - The petitioner filed a revision application before the Deputy Collector under Section 22(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966, on the advice of his lawyer, but the application was required to be filed before the Collector under Section 22(1). The delay in filing before the correct authority was held to be due to a bona fide mistake of the lawyer, which constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court emphasized that a liberal construction should be given to the expression 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. (Paras 5-7) B) Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 - Revision - Section 22 - Jurisdiction - The revisional powers under Section 22(1) are vested in the Collector, but the Government may authorize any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector under Section 22(3) to exercise those powers. The petitioner's lawyer erroneously advised filing before the Deputy Collector, but the Additional Collector (who is of the rank of Deputy Collector) had the authority to entertain the revision. The court held that the mistake was bona fide and condoned the delay. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing the revision application before the Additional Collector instead of the Deputy Collector should be condoned when the petitioner acted on the bona fide advice of his lawyer.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 16/10/2014 is set aside. The delay in filing the revision application is condoned. The Additional Collector-II is directed to hear the revision application on merits and dispose it of within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Bona fide mistake of lawyer
- Liberal construction
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 22 of Goa
- Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act
- 1966
