Ramavatar Mishra vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition at the admission stage. It quashed the impugned order (Annexure P1) and permitted the petitioner to prosecute their appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court extended the period for filing the appeal by another 45 days, which would cover the period when the petitioner's appeal was filed (37 days late). The Appellate Authority was directed to restore the petitioner's appeal to its original number and hear it on merits. The reasoning appears to be based on parity with the order passed in the case of Gandhi Shramik Sahkari Samiti, which was allowed an extension of time. The ratio decidendi is that in circumstances where a similarly situated party has been granted relief regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, and the delay is not inordinate, a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, may grant similar relief to ensure fairness and avoid disparity in treatment.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramavatar Mishra, along with another entity, Gandhi Shramik Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, had previously filed writ petitions (WPT No. 77 of 2013 and WPT No. 75 of 2013). These were disposed of on April 6, 2018, with liberty granted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days. The petitioner filed their appeal 37 days after this period expired. The other entity, Gandhi Shramik Sahkari Samiti, also filed an appeal after the 30-day period, but they were granted an extension of time in a separate miscellaneous civil case (MCC No. 122 of 2019), and their appeal is pending. The petitioner's application for extension of time was not entertained, but liberty was reserved to proceed in accordance with law. The present writ petition challenges an order (Annexure P1).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to prosecute their appeal before the Appellate Authority, despite filing it beyond the period of 30 days stipulated by the High Court in its previous order dated April 6, 2018. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that since a similarly situated entity, Gandhi Shramik Sahkari Samiti, was granted an extension of time to file its appeal, the petitioner should also be permitted to do so. The petitioner sought to have their appeal heard on merits. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and its authorities).