Ashit Kumar Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Plant, Unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. orderamareshwar sahay, j.1. heard mr. a.k. sahani learned counsel for the petitioner.2. nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, though on 12.3.2004 an undertaking was given by the learned counsel for the respondents to file vakalatnama and also the counter affidavit, within a period of four weeks. but neither counter affidavit has been filed nor anybody has appeared today on behalf of the respondents. in that view of the matter, this writ petition is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition.3. the grievance of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner was acquired for bokaro steel limited but as per the scheme framed by the concerned respondents the petitioner has not been provided employment in bokaro steel' plant.4. in similar matter, which came before this court in cwjc no. 2329 of 2001, ranjit malik v. bokaro steel plant and others and cwjc no. 1571 of 2001, gitu v. bokaro steel plant and others, this court directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein in the light of the scheme framed by the management, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.5. in that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation stating in detail about his claim with all supporting documents to the managing director, bokaro steel plant, b.s. city, bokaro within a period of three weeks from today. if such representation is filed by the petitioner within the specified time, the managing director, bokaro steel plant, b.s. city, bokaro shall decide the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in the light of scheme framed by the management within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.6. with the above observations/directions this writ petition stands disposed of.