The Kalkatta Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Dlf Hilton Ltd and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[n.ananda, j.] this crl.p filed u/s,438 cr.p.c praying to grant anticipatory bail to him and direct the respondent hassan city police not to arrest the petitioner in respect of the offences in c.r.no, 185/2010.....has been assigned in different paragraphs, gist of which is consultation with different lawyers for their opinion to prefer appeal. it is a real fact that for individual litigant that decision to prefer appeal is based on his own opinion and so far as the statutory body is concerned for preferring an appeal it requires different transactions with the officials and consultation with the lawyers etc., a time consuming process. be that as it may, now so far as the merit in question prima facie we are of the view that maintainability of the writ application has been assailed in this appeal on the premise that without availing the statutory appellate forum assailing the order of the hearing officer relating to the assessment of property tax, writ application was moved. since the question of maintainability of the writ is the subject matter of lis in this appeal, prima facie there is merit for consideration of the issue in appeal. it is now settled legal proposition of law that technicalities will not debar the litigant from coming to a court which has been expressed in the other way in the language that the courts door should not be closed on technical ground of limitation to a.....

Judgment:

The Court : Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Admittedly, there is delay for 191 days. This application has been opposed by the respondents. Reason for condoning the delay has been assigned in different paragraphs, gist of which is consultation with different lawyers for their opinion to prefer appeal. It is a real fact that for individual litigant that decision to prefer appeal is based on his own opinion and so far as the statutory body is concerned for preferring an appeal it requires different transactions with the officials and consultation with the lawyers etc., a time consuming process.

Be that as it may, now so far as the merit in question prima facie we are of the view that maintainability of the writ application has been assailed in this appeal on the premise that without availing the statutory appellate forum assailing the order of the Hearing Officer relating to the assessment of property tax, writ application was moved.

Since the question of maintainability of the writ is the subject matter of lis in this appeal, prima facie there is merit for consideration of the issue in appeal. It is now settled legal proposition of law that technicalities will not debar the litigant from coming to a Court which has been expressed in the other way in the language that the Courts door should not be closed on technical ground of limitation to a meritorious proceeding.

Having regard to the sufficiency of reasons and being satisfied thereby and considering the prima facie merit for consideration by us, we are of the view that this application should be allowed. To balance the situation in keeping with the respondents interest a cost of Rs. 1,000/- is imposed upon the appellant. Such cost is to be donated by the respondent to the State Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, as per desire expressed before us.

With the aforesaid findings and observations, we are allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The application is thus disposed of. The appeal is now in order.

The registry is directed to make necessary endorsement. Let the stay application be listed forthwith.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed Xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.