- (1.) RIGHT to appeal can be had only when such a right is given by the statute. In the instant case admittedly a right of appeal has been given by the statute itself. While granting such right, the statute has prescribed an obligation upon the appellant to file the Memo of Appeal along with the certified copy of the order appealed against. Limitation Act does not apply to the statute in question. A Division Bench of this Court has held so. The appellants are contending that since the Limitation Act is not applicable, anything provided in the Limitation Act cannot be stretched and applied to the procedure of preferring of appeal under the statute in consideration. We have no dispute to the proposition that the Limitation Act does not apply and accordingly the mandates contained in that Act also cannot be locked at all. But the fact remains that a meaningful meaning must be given to the right to prefer the appeal as has been conferred. It cannot be presumed that while such grant has been given, the same has been made subject to the action on the part of the person who is obliged to supply the certified copy. The appeal cannot be preferred at any time as the appellant feels. The same must be preferred within 30 days from the date the order is communicated. The order as communicated cannot substitute the certified copy. Therefore, after the order is communicated, the person aggrieved by the order is required to obtain a certified copy thereof. The person who is required to issue a certified copy has not been obliged to issue the certified copy within a time specified. In such situation if the person who has been obliged to issue the certified copy sits over the application made therefor for a period over 30 days, will the right of appeal is bestowed by the Statute be lost ? We do not think so. In law it must be deemed, therefore, that the time taken to prepare and intimate the certified copy is automatically excluded from the time limited for preferring the appeal. That is exactly what has been held by the ld. single Judge and accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the ld. single Judge.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , both the stay petition and the appeal stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.;