@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Kumar, J.@mdashThis contempt petition is filed alleging that the Respondents to this proceedings have willfully disobeyed the lawful order passed by this Court on 18.11.2010 in W.P.27883/2010. In the said order, this Court reserved liberty to the complainants to challenge the impugned order in the writ petition. Further, it was made clear if the complainant files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order before the appellate authority, the appellate authority was directed to receive the same without raising objection as to the limitation and dispose of the matter on its merits in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the complainant in this petition is inspite of the aforesaid positive direction to the appellate authority, the tribunal refused to entertain the appeal without an application for condonation of delay. The grievance is that the tribunal presided by a Retired Chief Justice of a High Court has willfully disobeyed the lawful order passed by this Court.
3. Therefore, notice was issued to the Respondents who are the chairperson and member of the appellate tribunal.
4. After service of notice, they entered appearance. In fact, on the last occasion they were represented toy the learned Advocate General who sought time to remedy the mistake.
5. Today, a memo is filed enclosing a copy of the order which they have passed on 20.4.2011 purporting to be a clarificatory order which sets out the circumstances under which they passed the order which amounted to contempt of this Court In fact, for a proper appreciation it is necessary to extract what is stated in the order which is complied:
However, while allowing the Appellant to withdraw the Appeal, the High Court gave a direction to this tribunal to entertain the main Appeal without insisting for the application to condone the delay. This order, passed by the High Court, in our view, is not in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Act, as the limitation point can be considered only by this Tribunal and the High Court is not empowered to give any such direction to this Tribunal.
Therefore, we are unable to comply with the direction of the High Court On the other hand, we are constrained to deal with the question as to whether the Appeal is maintainable without any application to condone the delay. We are of the view that as per Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Appeal is not maintainable in the absence of the prayer to condone the delay in filing this Appeal.
However, when we are about to dismiss this Appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks permission to file the Application to condone the delay in filing this Appeal. In view of this request, we deem it appropriate to permit the Appellant to file the Application to condone delay within 2 weeks
Now, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 20.4.2011, this is what they have stated:
7: We now realize that we had committed a grave mistake in making the observations about the jurisdiction of the Hon''ble High Court in our order dated 19.1.2011. We sincerely feel that those observations should not have been made by us while dealing with the matter. While we examine the matter when we passed the order dated 19.1.2011, we had no occasion to go into the decision on limitation which had already been take by the Hon''ble High Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to recall the order passed by this Tribunal on 19.1.2011 in its entirety. Accordingly, the same is recalled
8. Before parting with, we must state that we have got the highest respect and reverence for the jurisdiction of the Hon''ble High Court The order has been passed on 19.1.2011 without any other motive but only with bonafide intention. Therefore we feel that the orders of the Hon''ble High Court passed on 18.11.2010 as well as on 19.4.2011 have to be followed by this Tribunal without any reservation. Consequently, all the other orders also are recalled except the order dated 1.4.2011 by which order, the Appeal has been admitted.
To err is human, but realising the mistake and retracing the steps shows the magnanimity. At last, the mistake is realised. They have retraced the steps. They have expressed their regret and apologized. They have shown due respect to this institution, which it deserves. This should be an eye opener to all other authorities who are functioning under the jurisdiction of the High Court Even if by mistake they have disobeyed the order, they should have the courage and sincerity to accept the mistake, retrace the steps, obey the order and express their sincere regret. From the order which is passed, we are satisfied that by a bonafide mistake the appellate authority has passed the order. When the same is pointed out, they have retraced the steps and then upheld the dignity of the Court and the, rule of law. Consequently, proceedings are dropped.
Sri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, is permitted to file power for R.3.
