Most. Mulia Devi Vs. Secretary Jharkhand State Electricity Board 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]. orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for jharkhand state electricity board and bihar state electricity board.2. it is submitted that petitioner's husband died in harness on 17.4.1997 as un-skilled khalasi from electric supply sub-division, loyabad, dhanbad. it is further submitted that some of the retiral benefits have no been paid such as arrear pension, gpf with permissible statutory interest for which she made representation also before respondent no. 1.3. learned counsel appearing for jharkhand state electricity board does not dispute the liability of jseb to pay the dues. however, he submitted that petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent no. 3.4. under the circumstances, petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent no. 3, who will look into the mater. if he finds that any legally payable amount is due to the petitioner, the same should be paid to her. if he finds that any claim/part of it is not legally payable, reasons thereof should be communicated to the her. this exercise should be completed within two months from the date of receipt 6f such representation.5. it is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the case.6. with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.