The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in applications for condonation of delay. In a significant ruling, the Court held that failure to afford notice to all respondents before rejecting such applications renders the order illegal, reinforcing the foundational principle of audi alteram partem.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner sought to file a second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, challenging an order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Additional Collector, District Agar Malwa. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, prompting the petitioner to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
Procedural History
- 16.09.2020: Order challenged by petitioner was passed by Additional Collector
- 2025: Second appeal filed with application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- 09.12.2025: Additional Commissioner rejected the condonation application without issuing notice to respondents 6 to 10
- 2026: Writ petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order rejecting the condonation application and remand of the matter for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity to all parties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate authority may reject an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without issuing notice to all respondents and affording them an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle of natural justice and argued that the Additional Commissioner’s refusal to issue notice to respondents 6 to 10 violated the audi alteram partem rule. She contended that the petitioner’s affidavit, unchallenged due to lack of notice, should have been accepted at face value for the purpose of prima facie assessment. She cited State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noor to underscore that procedural irregularities in condonation applications cannot be overlooked.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s Public Prosecutor did not contest the procedural flaw but argued that the delay was unexplained and that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient cause. However, no counter-affidavit was filed by respondents 6 to 10, and the State did not assert any prejudice arising from the lack of notice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the case and found that the Additional Commissioner acted arbitrarily by dismissing the condonation application without affording respondents 6 to 10 an opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a remedial provision designed to do substantial justice, and its application requires a fair hearing.
"The proper course for the Additional Commissioner to have adopted would have been to issue notice of the application for condonation of delay to respondents 6 to 10 and to solicit their reply along with affidavit, if any, and thereafter to have decided the application."
The Court held that the absence of a counter-affidavit does not justify summary rejection. The burden of proof lies on the applicant to show sufficient cause, but the respondent’s right to be heard is equally sacrosanct. The Court distinguished K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India on the point that even in administrative adjudication, the right to be heard cannot be dispensed with merely because the opposing party is silent.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s affidavit, though unchallenged, was not the sole basis for decision - procedural compliance itself is a substantive requirement under natural justice.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the order rejecting the condonation application and remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner to issue notice to respondents 6 to 10 and decide the application afresh in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory Before Rejecting Condonation Applications
- Practitioners must insist on notice being issued to all respondents before any condonation application is dismissed
- Courts cannot rely on silence of respondents as justification for summary rejection
- Failure to issue notice renders the order voidable, not merely irregular
Affidavits in Condonation Applications Are Prima Facie Valid Unless Challenged
- Unchallenged affidavits must be accepted as credible for preliminary assessment
- The absence of a counter-affidavit does not equate to lack of sufficient cause
- Courts must evaluate the explanation offered, not merely the existence of opposition
Procedural Compliance Is a Substantive Right, Not a Formality
- Natural justice applies even in quasi-judicial proceedings under revenue codes
- The right to be heard is not waived by non-appearance or non-filing of reply
- Any order passed without notice is liable to be set aside on writ jurisdiction
