Arvind Kumar Mehta 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 the parties.2. the only grievance of the petitioner is that his two bills amounting to rs. 24,650/ and 9,775/-, submitted as far back as in the year 2001, have not been paid inspite of his representation made to the concerned secretary through the advocate general's office.3. learned state counsel submits that the matter will be looked into.4. it is unfortunate that the petitioner, an advocate of this court had to file this writ petition for payment of his professional fees, for which he submitted bills as far back as in the year, 2001. if there was any dispute regarding them, the same should have been informed to the petitioner along with admitted payment.5. in the circumstances, respondent no. 2 will look into the matter and do the needful. if the bills are not disputed, the same should be paid. if any part of the bills are disputed, reasons thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. this exercise should be completed within four weeks from the receipt of this order.6. it was stated at the bar that several bills are pending for payment since long.7. learned secretary will also see that if other bills of other state counsels are pending, the admitted amounts should be paid and the reasons for the disputed amounts, if any, should be communicated. this exercise with regard to other pending bills of learned advocates should be completed with two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.8. it is desirable that a system is evolved under which action is taken on the bills within three months at the most, for paying the undisputed bills and communicating the disputed amount, if any.9. it is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the case.10. with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.