Dinkar Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand 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]. orders.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. heard the counsel for the petitioners. state of bihar and state of jharkhand.2. as the case requires determination by the respondents at the first instance, it is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the parties.3. according to the petitioners, they performed the duties of non-formal education supervisors in different projects in the districts of godda; pakur and sahebganj. subsequently, they were retrenched, the projects having closed. during the period, they worked, they were provided with honorarium/men days, but they have not been provided with the same for the period 1985 to 21st december, 1994.4. counsel for, the state of jharkhand submitted that the matter is to be looked into by the competent authority of the state of bihar, certain amounts have been sanctioned for those who were posted in the territory of the state of bihar.5. the counsel for the state of bihar submitted that the records are with the authorities in the districts of godda; pakur and sahebganj. in absence of such records, it cannot be determined whether the petitioners performed duties as non-formal education supervisors not.6. having heard the counsel for the parties, the case is remitted to the secretary, primary, secondary and higher education, government of jharkhand who will inquire into the matter taking into considerations the representations as may be preferred by the individual petitioners. if so necessary, the authorities may call for the report from the concerned officer of the districts of godda; pakur; and sabebganj. after such enquiry, and on receipt of information, the secretary, primary, secondary and higher education, jharkhand will sent the relevant records with his comments to the secretary. primary and adult education, government of bihar, patna, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of representation(s).7. the secretary, primary and adult. education, government of bihar, patna, in its turn, will determine.....