Phulpati Devi 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]. orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing, for the boards.2. in view of the order which i intend to pass, it is not necessary to hear respondent no. 6.3. the only prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent electricity board should be directed to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment given to respondent no. 6, namely mamta kuwar.4. it is submitted that respondent no. 6 was given employment on compassionate ground as her husband died due to negligence on the part of the board. it is further submitted that as per the terms of appointment, respondent no. 6 is obliged to maintain the family members of the deceased but she is not maintaining them. it is further submitted that on the representations made by the petitioner enquiry has been done by the different authorities, in which it was found that respondent no. 6 is not complying with the said terms of her appointment.5. learned counsel for the board submitted that board will look into the matter.6. in the circumstances, if the petitioner makes a representation before respondent no. 3 along with the relevant details, respondent no. 3, will pass orders on the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.7. it is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the case.8. with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.