AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the parties in view of short controversy is involved in this first appeal. This first appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition was dismissed. In support of the appeal, Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and simultaneously recording findings on merits of the matter. According to him, if the Railway Claims Tribunal was not satisfied with the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition, it could have only rejected the application for condonation of delay and could not have proceeded to determine the matter on merits. At any rate, according to him, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed since there were reasons for condoning the delay in filing he claim petition and powers under Section 17(2) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 could have been liberally utilized by the Tribunal. According to him, the reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition are not legal, correct and proper.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. Lambat, the learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that as a matter of fact, the application for condonation of delay does not at all demonstrate any plausible explanation for the long delay of about a year, so also, no sufficient reasons were furnished in the application with any proper material to facilitate the Tribunal to find out whether the reasons were sufficient or not. At any rate, according to him, the case of appellant, taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected. He relied on the decisions (Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India and others, 2001 AIR(Bom) 310) and , (Birla Cement Works v. G. M. Western Railways and another, 1995 AIR(SC) 1111).

(3.) We have gone through the impugned order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal. We have gone through the relevant provisions of both the Acts. Section 17 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 permits filing of claim petition beyond the period of limitation unlike the suits, along with an application for condonation of delay. It is fact that the averments in the application for condonation of delay are vague and without any materials.