Orissa Pump and Engineering Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Orissa 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]. - after making necessary review, the cabinet subcommittee recommended as follows :while osic will continue to play the promotional role providing support to local s...........11.1.1997 for acquisition of 51 to 100 per cent equity. opposite parties 4 to 6 purchased the equity shares and thus ownership of orissa pump and engineering company was transferred to them as per agreement dated 21.10.1998.3. this court is not the forum to decide whether ownership of the company ought to have been transferred or not because it was the policy decision of the state government, privatisation of balco following the disinvestment policy was recently the subject-matter of challenge before the supreme court in balco employees union v. union of india. 2001 (8) scale 541. their lordships held that judicial review does not extend to examination of policy decisions. this being the legal position, there is hardly any scope for interference by this court.4. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale of equity transfer of ownership to opposite parties 4 to 6 was made contrary to the order of this court passed in o.j.c. no. 2978 of 1997. on perusal of the orders passed in the said case, we are satisfied that no such prohibitory order was passed by this court.there is thus no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.pradip mohanty, j.i agree.