1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2002 Union of India. ...Petitioner vs. Shri.V.N.Mangalanadan. ...Respondent. --- Mr.Sureshkumar, for Petitioner. Mr.R.G.walia, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.H.BHATIA,J. DATED: 8th April, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges 2 the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23.3.2001 in Miscellaneous Petition no.1044 of 2000. That petition by that order has been rejected. That petition had been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing review application. In the review application, the petitioner was seeking review of the order of the same tribunal dated 26.7.2000 passed in original application no.1210 of 1995. The grievance of the petitioner against the order of the tribunal passed on the application for condonation of delay is that though by that order the Tribunal has held in paragraph 10 of the order that case for condonation of delay has not been made out, in the entire order, the tribunal has not anywhere even indicated why the cause shown in the application for condonation of delay is not a sufficient cause. In the order, the Tribunal only discussed merit of the review application and refused to condone delay. 2. No doubt that there is no prima facie case made out can be one of the grounds on which Court can decline to condone the delay but only for that 3 reason Court cannot decline to condone delay. The Court has to consider the cause shown for the delay to find out whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown. Therefore, initially we indicated to the learned Counsel appearing for respondent that we will set aside the order impugned and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the application for condonation of delay and to consider whether the cause shown in the application is sufficient or not. Because the Tribunal, as is evident from the order, has also proceeded on the assumption that it has power to condone the delay. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent however relying on the provisions of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rule,1987 submits that the Tribunal does not have power to condone delay in filing review application. In support of that submission, he relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of “G.Narasinha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and other, 2005(4) Services Law Reporter 720” where full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court relying only on the language of 4 sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunal Act has held that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the review application filed before the Administrative tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner on the other hand relied on the judgment of the full bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of “Union of India and others vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and another, 2002(5) CTC 436” where the Calcutta High Court not only considered the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of the the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunal Act and the Scheme of the Act and the Rules but also referred to the provisions of Section 29 of the Limitation Act and has held that when there is delay in making an application for review before the Administrative Tribunal, in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable. We have considered the full bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court as also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with 5 the law laid down by the full bench of Calcutta High Court. We find that the view that has been taken by the Calcutta High Court apart from being in accordance and in consonance with the law it also advances remedy. There are several situations likely to arise because of which not only condonation of delay may become necessary but also there may be situation where a litigant may be required to claim exclusion of time etc. , and that will become possible for a litigant only if the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable. In our opinion, as the judgment of the Calcutta High Court advances remedy and as that judgment considers all the relevant aspects as also relevant judgments of the Supreme Court, the view taken by the Calcutta High Court is proper and appropriate. Accordingly, in our opinion also, the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable when an application for review is to be made before the Administrative Tribunal. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for respondent that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to application for review filed before the Tribunal, is rejected. 6 3. As we find and as observed above as the Tribunal also proceeded on assumption that they have power to condone delay but did not actually consider whether the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient cause, the appropriate order, in our opinion, would be to remit the application back to the tribunal for reconsideration. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order dated 23.3.2001 passed in Miscellaneous Petition no.1044 of 2000 is set aside. That petition is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for consideration and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 7 (J.H.BHATIA, J.) ---