Amit Sharma vs. Indian Bank And Another

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a cornerstone of justice and should not be lightly cast aside on procedural technicalities. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to provide a fair and reasoned consideration of the appeal. The Court found that the Appellate Authority's approach, by dismissing the appeal on delay, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and substantive justice. The Court cited precedents where appeals were remanded for fresh decision on merits even after significant delay, provided there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The Court concluded that justice demands that substance triumphs over form and that procedural hurdles should not derail justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits within a period of four months, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.04.2023, which dismissed his appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The appeal was filed against an order dated 03.08.2022. The petitioner contended that he had acted with due diligence and that the dismissal of his appeal on delay grounds, without considering the merits, was unjust. He argued that the Appellate Authority failed to adhere to principles of natural justice. The petitioner also referred to judicial precedents where courts have adopted a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure substantive justice, especially when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The petitioner's removal from service was also a factor in the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, given the petitioner's contention of acting with due diligence and the absence of gross negligence or deliberate inaction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the appeal on delay was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as it prevented a consideration of the merits of his case. He contended that he had acted with due diligence and that any delay was not attributable to wilful negligence. He relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd. and other High Court judgments (e.g., Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni, Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes) which emphasize a liberal approach to condoning delay to advance substantive justice and avoid technicalities derailing justice. The petitioner asserted that the Appellate Authority should have considered the appeal on merits after affording him a hearing. Revenue/Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.