Shravan Kumar Vs. Bihar- School Examination Board and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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]. permod kohli, j.1. petitioner was admitted in primary teachers' training college, konbir, nawatoli of gumla district and he completed the teachers training course for the session 1989-91. he appeared in primary teachers' training examination under roll code, 1501 and roll no. 33. examination was held on and august, 1994. it is stated that petitioner is said to have been awarded 13 marks for the subject arts and music (amu). it is alleged that actually petitioner has secured 33 marks. he has placed on record mark-sheet (annexure-2), which is said to be signed by the principal of primary teachers' education college, konbir, nawatoli, district gumla. in this document, 33 marks are shown against the subject of amu.2. a similar issue came up for consideration in wp (c) no. 2882 of 2002, manoj kumar singh v. bihar secondary school examination board and ors. 2002 (2) jcr 443 (jhr). this petition was disposed of with the following directions:as the matter requires determination by the respondents at the first instance and about eight years have passed after the examination, instead of hearing the respondents for the present, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the bihar school examination board, patna.if any application is preferred by the petitioner along with a copy of this order, the secretary, bihar school examination board, patna will get the matter enquired through some competent person and communicate its decision to petitioner.in case the allegation of the petitioner is found to be true, the corrected mark-sheet be sent to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of representation.on the other hand, if any adverse decision is taken, the authority will communicate the ground to the petitioner within the period aforesaid.3. the case of the petitioner is similar in nature. this petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the respondents to dispose of the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid directions and pass appropriate order.