Administrative Tribunal lacks power to condone delay in Review Applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

The Review Applicants (Union of India and Ministry of Defence) filed a Review Application (RA) against an earlier order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 332/00286/2022. Along with the RA, they filed a delay condonation application (MA No. 3173 of 2025).

The applicants argued that the Tribunal possesses the powers of a Civil Court and, supported by a High Court precedent and a Principal Bench circular, has the authority to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to condone delay in filing a Review Application by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in light of Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

2. Whether the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda regarding the limitations of quasi-judicial bodies are applicable to the Administrative Tribunals.

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal powers of a Civil Court for reviewing decisions but subjects its procedure to natural justice and specific rules.

Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that a review application must be filed within thirty days from the receipt of the order.

The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 19), which dictates that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to by quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals unless expressly empowered by statute.

The Tribunal analyzed whether the "legal fiction" of having Civil Court powers under Section 22(3) of the Act extended to the power of condoning delay under the Limitation Act. Following the Supreme Court's reasoning in The Property Company (P) Ltd., the Tribunal noted that such fictions are limited to the specific purposes for which they were created and do not automatically confer discretionary powers to extend limitation periods.

The Tribunal observed that while it had previously followed Allahabad High Court's direction in Surendra Kumar vs. Union of India to condone delays, the subsequent Supreme Court judgment (2026) superseded those rulings.

It concluded that because Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules contains no express provision for delay condonation, the Tribunal lacks the statutory jurisdiction to entertain an RA filed beyond the 30-day window.

The court answered the core issue in the negative, stating that the Supreme Court's mandate on quasi-judicial bodies binds the Tribunal. Consequently, the delay condonation application (MA) was rejected, and the Review Application was dismissed as barred by limitation.