Sinclair Steels 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]. .....for issuance of a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant licence/registration to the petitioner for processing/storage/sale/trade of iron ore.2. the case of petitioner is that it is a private company engaged in the business of mining, manufacturing, processing, trading, sale and purchase of iron ores. a circular was issued in the department of mines by the state of jharkhad in 2007 directing all persons/companies engaged in the business of minerals to obtain registration from the mining department.3. in pursuance of the direction contained in the said circular, the petitioner filed its application on 28.5.2008 before the district mining officer on 28.5.2008, who directed the petitioner to furnish certain documents, including a declaration on affidavit that the petitioner (in case of a company, the managing director thereof) is not convicted for any offence relating to smuggling of coal and minerals. it is stated that an affidavit was filed by the director of the petitioner company declaring that on the allegation that the petitioner did not possess the requisite registration certificate at the particular time, fir was instituted against the director in which he was granted bail and the trial is pending.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's representatives have been persuading the department concerned for grant of the dealer's registration which has not been granted so far.learned counsel for the petitioner explains that as per the conditions stipulated in respect of grant of dealer's registration, such registration may be withheld only if the applicant has been convicted of an offence relaxing to smuggling of coal and minerals.5. in the instant case, no such disqualification applies to the petitioner. yet the respondents have withheld the grant of registration to the petitioner without any reasonable and legal basis therefor.jc to sc mines who is present prays for time to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit.6......