- 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]. orderpermod kohli, j.1. petitioner has approached this court through the medium of this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents from raising any construction of market complex at lal bazar, govindpur (dhanbad), adjacent to the turning point of govindpur-balipur road, near gandhi chowk, named as hatia tand in pachayat area. it is stated by the petitioner that the locality where the shop is constructed is a residential area. the grievance of the petitioner is that with the construction of the market complex, the road has become congested and with the coming up of the markets, some anti-social elements also engaged in unlawful activities and nuisance is being created.2. in the counter-affidavit filed, it is stated that the market complex has been raised on the land, which belongs to the bazaar samiti established under the provisions of jharkhand agricultural produce market act. the construction of the complex has been made by maintaining 14' feet wide road. it is further stated that the petitioner is also having his medicine shop on the same road and has also encroached upon the land.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a statement at the bar that he has no objection in construction of the market except that 14' feet wide road be kept intact. he has further submitted that the respondents should remove all encroachments.4. on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the bar, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to maintain a 14' feet wide road as mentioned in the counter-affidavit and also to remove encroachments from the road, if any including that of the petitioner. however, if anybody is dislodged, principles of natural justice will be observed.