Central Administrative Tribunal lacks power to condone delay in filing review applications under Rule 17.

The Union of India (Review Applicants) sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 22.08.2024 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Applicants received a copy of the original order on 10.09.2024, making the 30-day limitation period for filing a review expire on 10.10.2024

However, the Review Application (RA) was filed on 05.11.2024, resulting in a delay of 25 days

The Applicants subsequently filed Misc. Application (MA) No. 2839/2024 praying for the condonation of this delay

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

Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that no review application shall be entertained unless filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order copy

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which vests the Tribunal with the power of reviewing its decisions

The Tribunal analyzed conflicting precedents: Surendra Kumar v. Union of India (Allahabad HC), which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies because it is not expressly excluded

Union of India v. Chanchal Nag (Gauhati HC), which held that a statutory Tribunal lacks the power to condone delay unless expressly conferred by the statute

The Tribunal noted that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is a special statute and that the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, were specifically framed under Sections 35 and 36 of said Act

While acknowledging the Allahabad High Court's view that the Limitation Act might apply, the Tribunal chose to follow the more restrictive interpretation established by the Gauhati High Court in Chanchal Nag

It reasoned that Rule 17 provides a specific timeline of 30 days and contains a negative injunction ("No application... shall be entertained unless...")

The Tribunal concluded that because the Act and the Rules do not expressly confer the power to condone delay specifically for review applications, the Tribunal cannot read such power into the statute through judicial pronouncement

Accordingly, MA No. 2839/2024 for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, RA No. 41/2024 was dismissed as time-barred