CRP 291/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Upadhyay, l earned counsel for the sole respondent. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the im pugned order dated 6/4/2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, w hereby the delay of 18 days in preferring the connected appeal was condoned. The facts leading to filing of this application may be stated in brief a s follows :- The petitioner No.1, Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Limited is a Government of Assam undertaking. In pursuance of the Jogighopa (Assam) unit of Ashok Paper Mi lls Limited ( Acquisition & Transfer of undertaking ) Act, 1980, the liabilities of the , Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Limited were vested to the Government of Assa m in addition to the Assets as provided under Section 7 and 8 of the Act. Accord ingly the State Government appointed a ’Commissioner of payment’ in respect of A shok Paper Mill (Assam) Limited, for settlement of claims etc as regards the lia bilities of erstwhile Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Limited. On the basis of the claims made by the claimants respondent, the ’Commissioner o f payment’ made the payment to the respondent. However, the respondent further m ade a claim for additional interest before the ’Commissioner of payment’. The Co mmissioner of payment vide order dated 23/3/95 allowed the interest at the rate of 9% per cent per annum to the respondent claimant. The respondent again made a claim for the balance amount of interest at the rate of 26% per annum before th e Commissioner. The Commissioner of payment refused to make the payment as claim ed by the respondent and as such an appeal was preferred by the respondent befor e the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaon. Section 22(8) of the Jogighopa (Assam) unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited ( Acqui sition & Transfer of undertaking ) Act, 1980 provides that a claimant, who is di ssatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, may prefer an appeal against s uch decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, within the l ocal limits of whose jurisdiction the undertaking of the Govt. company is situat ed. The learned learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaon by its order d ated 3/9/05 returned the memo of appeal to the respondent/appellant to present b efore appropriate forum with observation that his Court did not have jurisdictio n to entertain the appeal. Accordingly the respondent as appellant preferred the appeal vide Misc (A) No.7/ 2005, before the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. Together with the appeal, t he respondent also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay by stating therein that the certified copy of the afore said order dated 3/9/05 passed in Misc. Case(A) 8/2003 by the learned Civil Judg e (Senior Division) Bongaigaon was obtained only on 19/9/2005, and therefore he could not prefer the appeal in time ( i.e. on 20/9/2005) as he was also outside the country for tour of European countries w.e.f 10/8/2005 to 17/10/2005. The re spondent stated that delay of 18 days was caused in preferring the appeal due to the above reasons. The respondent petitioner contested the petition for condonation of dela y by filing writtrn objection. The learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, upon hear ing the respective parties, allowed the petition under Section 5 of the Limitati on Act, 1963 and condoned the delay of 18 days, in filing the appeal. This revis ion has been preferred against the order by which the the delay was condoned by the District Judge, Bongaigaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of the Jogighopa (Assam) unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited ( Acquisition & Transfe r of Undertaking ) Act, 1990, ( hereinafter Act of 1990 ) submitted that in term s of Section 22(8) of the Act, a claimaint, who is dissatisfied with the decisio n of the Commission, may prefer an appeal against such decision before the Princ ipal Judge of the District within the local limits of jurisdiction of the undert aking of the Government, company, where it is situated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though no li mitation for preferring an appeal has been prescribed in the Act of 1990, but th e provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be applied for the purpose of cal culating time, for preferring appeal as per provisions of Section 22(8) of the A ct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the ’Commissioner of payme nt’. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that if the special sta tue does not provide limitation in preferring appeal, the provisions of the Limi tation Act, 1963 cannot be applied for the purpose of calculating the delay in p referring the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is no specific provisions in the Act of 1990, prescribing limitation to prefer an appe al for the sake of abundant caution the respondent/appellant filed a petition fo r condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the Principle Civil Judge as because after the order of transfer was so made by the learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Bongaigaon, the appeal could not be filed before the Judge Prin cipal Civil Court in time. The learned counsel for the respondent further emphas ied that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, as pointed out by the petitione r cannot be applied in reckoning the delay of the appellant in preferring appeal as per provisions of Section 22(8) of the Act of 1990, against the order passed by the Commissioner of payment. For such purpose, the petitioner should look to the provisions of the Act of 1990, itself which confers the right of appeal but does not limit it by any time. It is a setle principle of law that the expressed intention of the legis lature cannot be substituted by the Court. Where a power is required to be exerc ised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that man ner or not at all, and all other modes of performances are necessarily forbidden . ( Hukan Chand Shyam Lal vs Union of India & others ) reported in 1976 SC 789. Any direction beyond the statutary scope and provision would be outside the powe r of the Court. In the case of Mandira Sita Ramji vs Governor of Delhi and ors, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1868, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a procedure is prescr ibed by the legislature, it is not for the Court to be wiser than the legislatur e in substituting the procedure. An appeal is a creature of statute. Unless the period of limitation for preferring the appeal is prescribed in the statute, we cannot import the provision of the Limitation Act, 1963. For such purpose we may look into the provisions of the Act, which confers the right of appeal. On careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Distr ict Judge Bongaigaon, I do not find any irregularity or impropriety in the impug ned order. The delay of 18 days caused in preferring the appeal, before the Prin cipal Judge of Civil Court at Bongaigaon, after the order passed by the Civil Ju dge (Sr. Division) Bongaigaon, has been duly explained with cogent reasons. In view of the above, without lingering the discussion any further, I co nsider that the revision petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Artic le 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, revision petition stands dismissed. However, I pass no orde r as to cost.