Administrative Tribunals Lack Inherent Power to Condone Delay in Filing Review Applications Under Limitation Act.

The Review Applicants (Union of India) filed a review application against a prior order, accompanied by a delay condonation application (MA No. 2927/2025)

The applicants sought to condone the delay in filing the review, relying on previous Allahabad High Court precedents and a CAT Principal Bench circular dated 05.03.2026, which suggested the Tribunal possessed inherently delegated powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

The matter arose before the Lucknow Bench to determine if the Tribunal has the statutory authority to extend the limitation period for review applications

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

2. Whether the provisions of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, specifically Rule 17, allow for any flexibility regarding the 30-day limitation period for review

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which outlines the Tribunal’s procedures and powers equivalent to a Civil Court for limited purposes, such as reviewing decisions

Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that no review application shall be entertained unless filed within thirty days of receipt of the order

The Supreme Court precedent in The Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda (2026), which held that quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals cannot resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend time unless expressly empowered by their governing statute

The Tribunal analyzed the interplay between its statutory powers and the Limitation Act. It noted that while Section 22(3)(f) of the Act of 1985 grants the power of review, Rule 17(1) of the Procedure Rules prescribes a rigid 30-day window

The Bench observed that although it had previously followed Allahabad High Court rulings (e.g., Surendra Kumar v. UOI) to condone delays, the recent Apex Court judgment in The Property Company (P) Ltd. created a binding prohibition

The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that "legal fiction" (deeming a tribunal a court for specific procedural tasks) cannot be extended to confer powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since neither the Administrative Tribunals Act nor the Procedure Rules "expressly indicate" the power to condone delay for reviews, the Tribunal concluded it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the late application

The prayer for delay condonation was rejected, and consequently, the Review Application was dismissed as time-barred