HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.25651 OF 2009 Dt.5.12.2009 Between: Smt.K.Kalavathi .. Petitioner And The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.25651 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rejecting M.A.No.3035 of 2007 filed by the petitioner to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased applicant. O.A.No.6430 of 2005 was filed by the deceased original applicant questioning the action of the Director General and Inspector General of Police and other respondents for not considering, sanctioning and releasing House Rent Allowance payable to the applicant since 1986 onwards in terms of the H.R.A Rules and for consequential direction to release the said H.R.A. While the O.A. was pending, the original applicant died on 31.3.2006 and his wife, petitioner herein, filed M.A.No.3035 of 2007 seeking that she be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased original applicant. The said application was filed on 19.9.2007. While considering the said M.A. under the impugned order, the Tribunal was of the view that under Rule 20 of the Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1989 such application to bring on record the legal representative, has to be filed within 30 days from the date of death of the original applicant. The Tribunal found that the said M.A.No.3035 of 2007 having not been made within 30 days and even unsupported by application seeking condonation of delay, under the impugned order, the said M.A. was rejected. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed on 24.11.2009. We have directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce copy of the affidavit of the application in M.A.No.3035 of 2007. We have perused para 3 of the affidavit. Rule 20 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1989 reads as hereunder: “Substitution of legal representatives:- (1) In the case of death of a party during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased party may apply within thirty days of the date of such death for being brought on record as necessary parties. (2) Where no application is received from the legal representatives within the period specified in sub-rule (1), the proceedings against the deceased party shall abate: Provided that on good and sufficient reasons the Tribunal, on an application, may set aside the order of abatement and substitute the legal representatives.” It would be noticed from the above that proviso to sub- rule (2) gives power to the Tribunal to set aside the abatement and substitute the legal representatives even in cases where the application is made beyond a period of 30 days. The decision of the Tribunal on existence of good and sufficient reasons is therefore sine qua non. In the present case, we find from para 3 of the affidavit filed by the applicant that the applicant-writ petitioner is widow of the deceased original applicant. She states that she was not aware of the pendency of the O.A. and she came to know only when she was searching for certain papers in the house after the death of her husband. Immediately she has instructed the counsel to make appropriate application and accordingly the application to bring her on record was made. No doubt, the prayer in the application is only to bring her on record as legal representative of the original applicant. However, the averments in para 3 of the affidavit are sufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that there are good and sufficient reasons for setting aside the order of abatement and substitute the legal representative. On a plain reading of the said Rule referred to above, we are of the view that the application for substitution of legal representative shall be filed within 30 days and even in the said application if the applicant shows good and sufficient reasons for not filing the said application within the said period, the Tribunal has jurisdiction and power to set aside the abatement and permit substitution. A separate application for bringing on record the legal representative and set aside abatement, as are normally filed under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., are not necessary to be moved in every case before the Tribunal in view of the wording of Rule 20 referred to above. Considering the fact that these are procedural rules, which are always treated as handmade, substantive cause ought not to be defeated. We are of the view that M.A.No.3035 of 2007 substantially satisfied Rule 20 referred to above. The petitioner has fairly admits that a separate application was not filed before the Tribunal as the petitioner was not accordingly advised. In view of the fact that the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of proviso to sub-clause (2) of Rule 20, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and consequently allow M.A.No.3035 of 2007 by setting aside abatement and condoning the delay and the petitioner shall stand substituted for the deceased original applicant. We also request the Tribunal to hear and determine O.A.No.6430 of 2005 in accordance with law at the earliest. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 5.12.2009 kpr