The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the authority u/s. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, by which, the said authority, viz., the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority refused to condone the delay in filing the proceedings on the ground that those were not filed within 90 days from the date of order passed by the competent authority because of lack of power with such authority to condone the delay.
The Bombay Stamp Act is a self contained code dealing with all relevant matters exhaustively therein and its provisions show an intention to depart from the common rule, qui facit per lalium facit per se. In the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, there is no provision incorporated by which the provision of the Limitation Act is extended to the proceedings under the said statute. The provision of the Limitation Act applies only to courts and courts alone, and it does not even apply to any Tribunal or any other authority unless by virtue of the statute creating such Tribunal or the Authority, the provisions of the Limitation Act have been specifically made applicable.
Thus, in the instant case, the authority u/s. 53 of the Act not being a Court could not take the assistance of the provisions contained in section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act however, unlike section 53, specifically gives power to the Chief controlling Revenue Authority to condone delay in preferring an application beyond the period of limitation fixed therein, namely, 60 days, but that power of condonation by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is also limited to only to a further period not exceeding 30 days.
Thus, if the Chief Controlling Authority has no power of condonation, it necessarily follows that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cannot condone the delay.