High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Condonation of Delay in Filing Revision under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Holding Section 5 of Limitation Act Applies. The Court ruled that a revision under Section 201-B is a 'petition' covered by Section 239-B, which expressly incorporates Sections 4, 5, 12, and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and no provision excludes condonation of delay.

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Judge condoning delay in filing a revision under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The petitioner sought to quash the order condoning delay and to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to revisions under Section 201-B.

The original applicant (first respondent) filed a revision before the District Court against an appellate order of the Director of Panchayats, but with a delay of 29 days; the District Judge condoned the delay, which the petitioner (original respondent no.1) challenged on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply.

The petitioner's illegal construction was ordered to be demolished by the Village Panchayat; the Director of Panchayats allowed the petitioner's appeal on 14/7/2016; the first respondent sought revision before District Court; the District Judge condoned delay and allowed the application (Civil Misc. Application No.241/2016) on 26/5/2017; this writ petition challenges that condonation order.

Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing a revision under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994? Whether the word 'shall' in Section 201-B(2) excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act? Whether Section 239-B covers revisions, given that it mentions only 'appeal or petition'? Whether the time-bound disposal requirement in Section 201-B(4) indicates legislative intent to exclude condonation of delay?

Petitioner contended that Section 201-B(2) uses 'shall', making the 30-day period mandatory; no provision for condonation exists, and Section 239-B applies only to appeals and petitions before officers, not to revisions before the District Court; Section 239-B was introduced earlier and not amended to include revisions; the time-bound disposal under Section 201-B(4) shows legislative intent to exclude condonation, and Section 29(2) Limitation Act is excluded. Respondents argued that a revision is a petition and covered by Section 2(b) Limitation Act; Section 239-B makes Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 applicable to all petitions under the Act; there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act, and the court should interpret the law to avoid inconsistency.

The provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to a revision under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, by virtue of Section 239-B of the said Act, which makes Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act applicable to all appeals and petitions filed under the Act; a revision is in the nature of a petition, and there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act; the use of the word 'shall' in Section 201-B(2) and the time-bound disposal clause in Section 201-B(4) do not operate to exclude condonation of delay.

Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 can be invoked in filing a Revision Application under section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act for short) is the question which falls for determination in this petition. The use of the word “shall” therein in my considered view is not sufficient to hold that it excludes the provisions as to condonation of delay. Thus merely because sub section 2 of section 201-B employs the word 'shall' cannot per say be construed as excluding the provisions as to condonation of delay. In my considered view the submission is misplaced. Thus, looked from any angle, the contention that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked in filing a revision application under section 201-B of the Act, cannot be accepted.

Village Panchayat issued demolition order against the petitioner based on a complaint by the first respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Director of Panchayats, who allowed the appeal on 14/7/2016. The first respondent sought to file a revision before the District Court under Section 201-B, but with a 29-day delay; filed Civil Misc. Application No.241/2016 for condonation. The District Judge allowed condonation on 26/5/2017. The petitioner filed WP No.543/2017 challenging the condonation order.

• Indian Limitation Act, 1963: 2(b), 4, 5, 12, 14, 29(2)
• Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: 201-A, 201-B, 239-A, 239-B, 239-C
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 193, 219, 228