Smeatons Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

.....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]. - or for that matter any other contracting party might like to secure its interest one way or the other. we, accordingly, direct that the state-respondents in this..........being automatically renewed if the contract period is extended for any reason? we are of the considered opinion and view that the insistence on the earnest money being deposited only through nsc is both irrational, illogical and has no nexus with the object to be aggrieved.we, accordingly, direct that the state-respondents in this particular contract as well as in all future contracts shall not insist upon this requirement or prescribe the same with respect to the securing of earnest money. instead, the state- respondents shall ensure that the earnest money payment is properly secured by whatever possible means and methods, whether it is by payment through cash, furnishing of a bank guarantee or a proper and valid f.d.r. for such period as may be desirable or required.'5. in the light of the decision aforesaid, i direct the respondents to accept the earnest money/security deposit, if the petitioner or any other person deposits along with tender documents in pursuance of tender notice no. 2 of 2002-03 either in cash or f.d.r. for the period of contract or bank guarantee, as ordered by the division bench, as quoted above.6. the writ petition stands disposedof.