Limitation Act, 1963: Applicability to Special laws – Held: Where period of limitation are prescribed under special laws, appeals that exceed the period granted in the special laws can be entertained at the discretion of the tribunal and Limitation act would not apply – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. General Clauses Act – Applicability of, to appeals filed under the NGT Act – Held: s.10 of General Clauses Act stipulates when the last date for doing something falls on a public holiday, the act shall be considered as done, if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open – This provision applies to all Central Acts enacted after the said Act was brought into force – Therefore, s.10 applies proprio vigore to all appeals filed under the NGT Act – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: s.16 – Approach of the Court in considering the application for condonation of delay – The term ‘sufficient cause’ is relative, fact dependant, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the court) – Appellant pleaded that since the documentation attendant to the clearance granted to the Project Applicant was voluminous, and expert as well as professional legal advice of the kind necessary to approach the NGT was not available in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the procuring of relevant documents, and correspondence with counsel in Delhi and drafting of the appeal entailed some delay – In approaching NGT, scientific or technical support is necessary apart from expert professional legal advice – Rejection of appeal by dismissing application for condonation of delay, on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown, was erroneous discretion of NGT – An appeal to the NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter – The delay in filing the appeal before the NGT is condoned.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There can be no dispute that the period of limitation set out in a special law, which provides for remedies and appeals, has to be construed in its terms and without reference to the Limitation Act, if it contains specific provisions delineating the time or period within which applications or appeals can be preferred, and confines the consideration of applications for condoning the delay to a specific number of days. Undoubtedly, in such cases, the Limitation Act would be inapplicable. There are several previous judgments of this court holding that where periods of limitation are prescribed under special laws, appeals that exceed the period granted and are within the extended period of limitation in the special law, can be entertained at the discretion of the tribunal, or court concerned and the Limitation Act would not apply upon expiry of such extended period. This court held that there is merit in the contention of the Union that the provisions of the Limitation Act are inapplicable. [Para 18][293F-G; 294-A-B]
2. The appellant argues that the appeal is to be considered as having been filed within the extended period of 60 days, since the last (of the 60 days) was a Sunday (12.07.2020). The appellant relied on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, for this purpose. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stipulates that when the last date for doing something falls on a public holiday, the act “shall be considered as done..” if it “is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open”. This provision applies to all Central Acts enacted after the said Act was brought into force. It is also noticeable that there is no indication in the NGT Act that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be applied. It is therefore, held that the provision applies proprio vigore to all appeals filed under the NGT Act. [Paras 19, 20, 21][294-C-E; 295-A, C-D]
H.H Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh [1957] SCR 208 – followed.
3. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependant, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously prejudice the other party. Keeping these principles in mind, it is relevant to consider whether the NGT’s refusal to exercise discretion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was erroneous. The court is conscious of the fact that exercise of discretion, per se, is a fact dependent one, and considerable latitude should be given to the court or tribunal of the first instance, in the performance of that task. Nevertheless, as decided, cases and judgments have shown that the exercise of discretion does at times, call for appellate scrutiny by this court. This is one such. The appellant pleaded that since the documentation attendant to the clearance granted to the Project Applicant was voluminous, and expert as well as professional legal advice of the kind necessary to approach the NGT was not available in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the procuring of relevant documents, and correspondence with counsel in Delhi and drafting of the appeal entailed some delay. This court is of the opinion that there is merit in appellant argument. [Paras 27 and 28][297-F-H; 298-A-B] Smt. Padmabati Mohapatra v. Union of India (2013) SCC OnLine NGT 2177; Rambir Narhargir Gosai v. Prabhakar Bhaskar Gadhaway AIR 1955 Nag 300; Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India (2013) SCC OnLine NGT 2511; H. Dohil Construction
Company Private Limited v. Nahar Exports Limited (2015) 1 SCC 680 : [2014] 8 SCR 424; BRS Steels Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782 : [2012] 5 SCR 583; Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Others (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1510; Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401 : [2019] 5 SCR 916; Kaushalya Rani v Gopal Singh [1964] 4 SCR 982; Collector of Excise & Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 791 : [2009]
4 SCR 1197; Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619; Patel Bros. v. State of Assam (2017) 2 SCC 350 : [2017] 1 SCR 95; H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh [1957] SCR 208; Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 421; Mohd. Ayub v. State of U.P. (2009) 17 SCC 70 : [2009]
15 SCR 1095; G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142 : [1988] 3 SCR 198; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013)
12 SCC 649 : [2013] 9 SCR 782; State of
Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752 : [2005]
3 SCR 108; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840 : [1976] 2 SCR 266; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 23 : [1998] Suppl. SCR 403; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 : [1996] 1 SCR 1060;
Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634; Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786: [2010] 7 SCR 376; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.