ORDER NO. 17 DT. 18.05.2012

MRS. S.MAJUMDER, MEMBER

This Appeal is filed by the Appellant out of time by 51 days from the date of passing the judgement by the Ld. Forum below, according to the Appellant.

In the said petition for condonation of delay it is stated by the Appellant that the copy of the impugned order was communicated to the Appellant/Bank on 17.12.10 and after receiving the same the concerned Branch Manager of the said Bank sent it to his superior Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Kolkata Main Branch for his opinion and proper instruction on 23.12.10.  On 24.12.10 the Dy. General Manager of the said Bank requisitioned all the file including the papers which were received by them on 11.1.11 from the concerned Branch Office and from the authorized officer of the Bank.  Immediately thereafter the Dy. General Manager of the Calcutta Main Branch perused all the documents for proper instruction and advice as well as for the purpose of consideration in respect of initiation of the Appeal against the impugned order dt. 14.12.10.  The Law Officer of the Appellant Bank made consultations regarding this matter with Ms. Jayashree Saha and thereafter a meeting was held on 14.2.11 in presence of the DGM, Calcutta Main Branch, Ms. Jayashree Saha and Mr. Subrata Ch. Polle, Ld. Advocates, and the Law Officer.  As per the opinion of the legal advisor this Appeal was filed on 16.3.11. It is further submitted by the Appellant that after the abovementioned discussion Ms. Saha was entrusted to obtain the certified copy of the order impugned and on 15.2.11 an application was made for obtaining the certified copy and on the said date the copy was received and the same was handed over to the concerned Branch Manager on 17.2.11 and immediately the same was sent to the Dy. General Manager, Calcutta Main Branch on 21.2.11.  The matter was assigned to Ms. Saha for preparation of the draft of the Memo of Appeal.  The Appeal was prepared on 25.2.11 and the same was delivered to the office of the Dy. General Manager, Calcutta Main Branch and on the next date the draft was sent to the Law Officer, who personally made contact with Mr. Polle for finalisation of the same and the same was ultimately finalized by the said advocate on 7.3.11.  On the said date it was collected from him and delivered to the Dy. General Manager and on the next date after perusal and consideration of the draft and on 11.3.11 the same was sent to Ms. Saha for filing the Appeal before the State Commission.  According to the Appellant, as there is no intentional laches on its part and if the delay is not condoned and the Appeal is not admitted the Appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.  Accordingly, a prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 51 days.

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent before this Commission has submitted that though the Appellant has mentioned that there is a delay of 51 days excluding the statutory period of limitation, but there is actually delay of 63 days excluding the statutory period of limitation.  As the delay for the abovementioned 12 days has not been mentioned and explained properly, the petition for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.

We have carefully perused the petition and heard arguments from the Ld. Advocates for the parties advanced by them.  It is seen by us that the Ld. District Forum, 24 Parganas (North), has passed the impugned order on 14.12.10 and the application for the certified copy was made on 15.2.11 and on the same date the certified copy was delivered and this Appeal was preferred by the Appellant on 16.3.11.  Therefore, there is a delay of about 93 days in preferring this Appeal from the date of passing the impugned judgement, out of which the Appellant is entitled to get benefit of 30 days for which no explanation is necessary.  Hence, the Appellant is under obligation to give proper and sufficient explanation for the period of 63 days.  It is noticed by us that after a lapse of two months from the date of passing the judgement the Appellant applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgement. Though the Appellant has stated in the petition for condonation of delay that discussions and conferences were held with the Law Officer and higher authorities of the Bank in respect of initiation of this Appeal, but we are unable to understand that on what basis the discussions were made.  There is no endorsement in the certified copy of the impugned judgement that free copy was given to the Appellant by the Ld. Forum below.  During hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has failed to satisfy us that on which basis the decision was made for preferring of an Appeal before this State Commission.  We have noticed within the four corners of the said petition that there is no explanation for the period from 15.12.10 to 14.2.11.  Moreover, there is also no explanation for about 12 days in the petition for condonation of delay.  Hence, the Appellant has failed to give sufficient and cogent explanation for a period of about 2 months and 12 days in the said petition.  There are several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission to the effect that delay should be explained properly and in case of want of sufficient and cogent explanation the petition should be rejected.  In the instant petition we have noticed that as the Appellant has failed to give any explanation for about a period of 2 months and 12 days, we are not inclined to allow the petition for condonation of delay. 

Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion it is ordered that the petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.  Consequently, the Appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.