Case Law Details
Narendra Hirawat Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court reviewed the case of Narendra Hirawat against the State of Maharashtra, addressing the dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority. Hirawat had initially filed an appeal against an order dated April 25, 2022, but inadvertently failed to indicate the required 10% pre-deposit in the designated column during online submission. After realizing the mistake, he promptly made the pre-deposit using his electronic cash ledger. However, the appellate authority dismissed his appeal on April 13, 2023, solely based on the initial filing error, disregarding the subsequent compliance.
The High Court ruled that the appellate authority’s decision was excessively rigid and disproportionate, given that the pre-deposit had been duly made. Setting aside the dismissal order, the Court restored Hirawat’s appeal and directed the appellate authority to review and dispose of the case on its merits. The ruling reinforces the principle that minor procedural lapses, when corrected in good faith, should not obstruct substantive legal review.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has instituted the appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 25 April 2022. However, inadvertently, while filing the appeal online, as against the column indicating pre- deposit, no amount was indicated.
4. After this error was realized, the petitioner did make the 10% mandatory pre-deposit from the electronic cash ledger. However, by ignoring this compliance and holding the petitioner to the inadvertent error, the appellate authority has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 13 April 2021.
5. Since the pre-deposit has been made, we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a rigid stand should not have been adopted. This was a case of an inadvertent error and the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal even after the error was corrected, is excessively disproportionate.
6. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order dated 13 April 2023 and restore the petitioner’s appeal before appellant authority. Now that the pre-deposit has already made, the appellate authority must consider and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal on merits and in accordance with law.
7. The rule is made absolute in the above terms, and there shall be no cost order.
8. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Author Bio
