A. N. Verma, J. - (1.) SIX identical appeals were submitted by the petitioner against an order passed by the Licensing Authority deciding a dispute under sub-section (1) of section 25 passed by' the Licensing Authority under the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976. The Tribunal constituted under section 35 of the said Act has dismissed all these appeals on two grounds; one that the memorandum was not accompanied by the requisite court-fees prescribed under the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storages (Tribunal) Rules, 1976 framed under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the aforesaid Act and, two, that the petitioner had not submitted the copies of the orders sought to be challenged in appeals.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither of these two grounds is tenable. The order of the Licensing Authority against which the petitioner had submitted the appeals was passed on 28-5-79. Against this order the petitioner despatched six appeals by registered post to the U. P. Cold Storage Tribunal through its registrar. During the pendency of the appeals The U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage (Tribunal) Rules, 1978 came into force with effect from 24-6-79. These rules made provision for payment of court fees on memorandum of appeals preferred against the orders passed by the Licensing Authority referred to under section 36 of the Act. The Rules also made provision for submission of certified copies with the memorandum of appeal of the order sought to be challenged in appeal. The assertion of the petitioner that the appeals were despatched by registered post on 18-7-76 has not been disputed or denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The further fact that the aforesaid rules were notified on 24-8-79 has also not been challenged by the learned Standing Counsel. It is thus apparent that at the time of submission of the appeals by the petitioner the aforesaid Rules had not come into force.. Toe question is whether the Rules could be applied to the petitioner's appeals insofar as the payment of court fees is concerned. In the case of State of Bombay v. Messrs. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd., AIR 1980 SC 980, the Supreme Court ruled that impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only. It impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so cannot be applied retrospectively, unless it expressly or by necessary intendment says so. The dictum squarely applies to the situation in hand. The appeals of the petitioner were submitted prior to the coming into force of the Rules requiring that the memorandum of appeal should be affixed with court-fee stamps.- Prior to these rules, there was no provision for court-fee on the memorandum of appeals presented under section 36 of the Act, The Tribunal was, therefore, clearly in error in rejecting the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not made good the deficiency in court-fee leviable on the memorandum of his appeals. As we have found above, no court-fee was payable on the memorandum of appeals submitted prior to the coming into force of these Rules.
(3.) THE second objection, namely, the non filing of the copies of the orders appealed against is also untenable. THE requirement that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by a copy of the order challenged in appeal was the creation of the Rules. Prior to the Rules, there was no requirement that the order sought to be challenged must be filed with the memorandum of appeal. THE objection raised by the Tribunal, therefore, that since the petitioner had not submitted the copies of those orders, the appeals were liable to be dismissed, is also unsustainable. Apart from this, the petitioner has stated that on account of the fact that its managing partner Sri Naresh Kumar had met with an accident and had eventually died on 22-12-1979 and consequently the papers which the petitioners were called upon to submit could be furnished to the Tribunal THEse assertions have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. It is, however, asserted in the counter affidavit that the remaining partners could have done the needful? THE petitioner has stated in the petition that it was the managing partner who was looking after the affairs of the cold storage and that it was only after the death of Naresh Kumar that the other partners came to know that appeals filed on behalf of the cold storage were pending before the Tribunal by which time it was too late as the appeals had already been disposed of by the Tribunal on these technical grounds without going into the merits of the same. THE explanation offered in the petition seems plausible and there does not appear any reason for not accepting the same. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders annexed to the petition as Annexures 5A to 5F passed by the Tribunal are quashed. The petitioner will now furnish the papers which he was required to supply to the Tribunal within a month of the date on which a copy of the order is supplied to the petition. On the petitioner's furnishing the papers, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeals submitted by it in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. ';