ORDER NO. 2 DT. 4.12.09

Heard Mr. H.Bramhachari, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, in support of the application for condonation of delay as also Mr. Sukumar Das, who appears for the Respondent by filing Vokalatnama today, opposing the said application. Hearing of the application was taken up by consent of both parties.  It appears that the judgement challenged was dated 5.6.06 disposing of the proceeding by the Fourm giving appropriate directions.  The judgement itself records that thrice notice upon the OP was sent, but the notice with A/D card was returned to the complainant with remarks on the envelope "Unclaimed".  In such circumstances, still another attempt was made by publication on the newspaper, the Ganashakti, in respect of which Mr. Brahmachari raised objection stating that the same is not a leading Bengali newspaper.  But as notice through postal authority has come back thrice with the remark "Unclaimed", we find that subsequent step to publish the same in the newspaper was over and above the compulsory requirement.  Therefore, the contention of Mr. Brahmachari in respect of newspaper publication is not under consideration as the said attempt was over and above the requisite step for service of notice.

It appears that the Appellant never contested the proceeding taking a plea of ignorance of the proceeding until he faced the police authority executing the warrant of arrest.  It appears that the delay is of a long period as the order impugned was passed on 5.6.06 and the Appeal was filed on 8.10.09.  We are of opinion that the Appellant has exhausted all methods of delaying a proceeding pretending ignorance after refusing to accept notices through postal authority on repeated occasions.  In the circumstances, we do not feel it proper to condone the delay even taking a liberal view as the delay is of very long period, 1180 days as stated in Para-4 of the application.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed.  Therefore, the Appeal also stands dismissed.