Government of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Shahin Reza

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Government of Bangladesh. rep- resented by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others …………….Petitioners

-Vs-

Md. Shahin Reza …………… Respondent

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ

MM RuhulAmin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

Md. Abdul Matin J

Judgment Dated: 18th November 2007

The Administrative Tribunal Act. Section 6(2). 6(2A)

The Limitation Act, 1908. Section 5

The Code of Civil Procedure, Section 151

The appeal so filed Mas barred by time and as such an application for condonation of delay was filed ……………(6)

In our view the power of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as regard condonation of delay is limited to a case which has been filed within 3 months after expiry of the period prescribes in section 6(2) of the Act and once the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period as in section 6(2A) of the Act, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay inspite of offering sufficient explanation, which to the Tribunal may appear sufficient and satisfactory, as regard the delay since the Act has provided special period of limitation and once a case is beyond the said special period of the limitation the Court/ Tribunal, herein the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, has no power to extend the period for filing the appeal on accepting of the explanation offered as regard the delay in filing the appeal, considering the same as sufficient and that merit of the case requires condonation of delay for doing justice to the parties………………………. (15)

It is the accepted principle of law that the justice is to be done evenly to the parties before the Court in a proceeding and not to one of the parties to the prejudice of the other when the party to whom justice has been done to the prejudice of the other was not vigilant and was guilty of latches and negligence and that special period of limitation has become effective and then the Court/Tribunal has no discretion to condone the delay upon ignoring the special period of limitation on resorting to the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ………….(16)

Abu Jkikkar Siddique, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by B. Hossain, Advocate-on-record …………………For the Petitioners

Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate -on-record ………………..For the Respondent

Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 1278 of 2005

(From the Judgment and Order dated July 10. 2005 passed by the Administrative

Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 214 of 2005)

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ: This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated July 10, 2005 (Order No.6 dated 10.7.2005) of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 214 of 2005.

2. The aforesaid appeal, as it appears, was filed against the judgment and order dated

April 10, 2004 of the Administrative Tribunal. Chitlasong in Administrative Tribunal Case W 9 of 2003. The Administrative Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment and order allowed the case and thereupon set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent herein, petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal.

3. The Administrative Tribunal upon allowing the case passed the following

4. The case before the Administrative Tribunal was disposed of in presence of the parties to the case.

5. As against the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 9 of 2003. Government filed appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, bcinsi Appeal No. 214 of 2005.

6. The appeal so filed was barred by time and as such an application for condonation of delay was filed.

7. The delay in filing the appeal was 3 A months and 16 days.

8. The appeal as per provision of section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act was required to be filed within 3 (three) months from the date of judgment.

9. Section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act provides for condonation of delay in case of failure to file an appeal against the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal within 3 (three) months but filed within 6 (six) months from the date of judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal i.e. within 3 (three) months on the expiry of the period for filing the appeal prescribed in section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act.

10. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal noticed certain facts i.e. the date of delivery of judgment (10.4.2004), the date of filing application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order (08.08.2004), date of putting the requisites for preparation of the certified copy of the judgment and order (12.08.2004), making the certified copy of the judgment and order ready for delivery (25.08.2004), taking delivery of the certified copy of the judgment and order (31.08.2004) and the date of filing of the appeal (24.11.2004).

11. In the background of the aforesaid facts the Administrative Appellate Tribunal observed “liven after exclusion of time consumed by the Tribunal in delivering the certified copy, the appeal has not been filed within 6 months from the date of the delivery of the judgment and as such the appeal is hopelessly time barred” and thereupon rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequent thereupon dismissed the memo of appeal on the ground of limitation.

12. Facts as stated hereinbefore relating to obtaining the certified copy for filing the

appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal had not been disputed by the learned Deputy Attorney General.

13. The facts as have been reflected in the •judgment of the Administrative Tribunal

clearly show that the appeal was filed beyond the period as provides in section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980.

14. The law as in the Act empowers the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to condone

the delay in filing the appeal after the period prescribed in section 6(2) of the Act, if sufficiently explain. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal is competent to entertain an appeal upon condonation of delay, when sufficiently explained, only when the same is filed within 3 months from the date of expiry of the period prescribed in section 6(2) of the Act. From the reading of the law as in sections 6(2) and 6(2A) of the Administrative

Tribunal Act we are of the view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was not in error in refusing to entertain the Appeal No. 214 of 2005 since the same was filed beyond the period prescribed in section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. In a case, as in the instant one, inspitc of offering explanation for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the law, as in section 6(2A) of the Act, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is not competent to entertain an appeal on condonation of delay or in other words after expiry of the period as prescribes in section 6(2A) of the Act, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is incompetent to entertain an appeal, although delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained. Explaining of delay in filing

the appeal is limited to the period mentioned in Section 6(2A) of the Act and not beyond that.

15. In our view the power of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as regard condonation of delay is limited to a case which has been filed within 3 months after expiry of the period prescribes in section 6(2) of the Act and once the delay in filing the appeal is beyond the period as in section 6(2A) of the Act, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay inspite of offering sufficient explanation, which to the Tribunal may appear sufficient and satisfactory, as regard the delay since the

Act has provided special period of limitation and once a case is beyond the said special period of the limitation the Court/Tribunal, herein the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, has no power to extend the period for filing the appeal on accepting of the explanation offered as regard the delay in filing the appeal, considering the same as sufficient and that

merit of the case requires condonation of delay for doing justice to the parties.

16. It is the accepted principle of law that the justice is to be done evenly to the partics before the Court in a proceeding and not to one of the parties to the prejudice of the other when the party to whom justice has been done to the prejudice of the other was not vigilant and was guilty of latches and negligence and that special period of limitation has become effective and then the Court/Tribunal has no discretion to condone the delay upon ignoring the special period of limitation on resorting to the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

17. Legislature prescribes period requiring one intends to approach a Court/tribunal to vindicate one’s cause or grievance within the specified time for meaningful purpose i.e. for determination of any dispute apparent between the parties over any matter by the said specified time and thereby to give certainty regarding the subject matter of the dispute after a reasonable time. When prescribed period of limitation in pursuing a matter before the Court/Tribunal become effective against a party, he, thereby, has been debarred from

pursuing his grievance upon resorting to a procedure prescribed for the redressed of such grievance and thereby the person against whom there is grievance saved from hassle at Court/Tribunal and is being freed from uncertainty.

18. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was hopelessly time barred and the

judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal being based on consideration of the facts which could not be shown incorrect from the side of the petitioners seeking leave to appeal, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

19. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),592

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.