2004 JTR(SC) 1450
2005 25 AIC 70 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 1491 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 7437 ; 2005 58 AllLR 1 ; 2005 1 ApexCJ(SC) 401 ; 2005 1 AWC 218 ; 2005 1 BBCJ(SC) 359 ; 2004 3 BLJR 2271 ; 2005 1 CalLJ(SC) 177 ; 2005 1 CHN(SC) 185 ; 2005 1 CivCC 685 ; 2005 1 CPJ(SC) 1 ; 2005 1 CurLJ 520 ; 2005 DNJ 146 ; 2005 2 JCR(SC) 91 ; 2005 1 JLJR(SC) 77 ; 2005 11 JT 78 ; 2005 3 PLR(SC) 287 ; 2005 3 RCR(Civ) 170 ; 2004 10 Scale 14 ; 2005 1 SCC 191 ; 2004 Supp6 SCR 282 ; 2005 1 WBLR 818 ; 2005 1 KLT(Online) 1130 ; 2005 KHC 343 ; 2004 8 Supreme 528
2004(8) Supreme 528
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
HUDA & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7522 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12371 of 2004)
Decided on 22-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Satinder S. Gulati and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : In-person.
For the Respondent No. 2 : H.K. Puri, Manish Kumar Saran and V.K. Verma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a period is prescribed for performance of an act in a Court or office and that period expires on a holiday, then act should be considered to have been done within that period if it is done on next day on which Court or office is open.
Act Referred :GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.10
(A) The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 10) provides that if a prescribed period for doing any act expires on a day which is not a working day or the office is closed, the act may be done on the next day on which the office is open without being deemed to be late. This principle that the law does not compel the performance of the impossible applies where a party is prevented from performing within the stipulated time due to circumstances beyond his control, such as a postal holiday or office closure. In the present appeal, the respondent communicated his refusal to accept the allotment through a registered letter which was received by the appellant-HUDA on 3.12.2001, after the closure of the HUDA office on 1.12.2001 and 2.12.2001 and on the postal holiday of 30.11.2001. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with the principles under the General Clauses Act, govern the timeline for acceptance or rejection of the allotment and the consequent forfeiture of earnest money.
(B) The core legal principles include the doctrine of impossibility performance where a party is not bound to perform an act if it is impossible due to external causes, the application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to extend timelines to the next working day, and the principle that a party cannot be penalized for delays caused by circumstances beyond their control. The case also underscores the principle that strict forfeiture may not be sustained if the non-intimation was caused by postal holidays or office closures.
Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for and paid a deposit for an allotted residential plot. He communicated his refusal to accept the allotment via registered letter, which was received after the HUDA office was closed and on a postal holiday. The HUDA forfeited the earnest money following the non-acceptance within the stipulated period, leading to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum ordered refund with interest, a position affirmed by the State Commission and dismissed in revision by the National Commission.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent could not be held liable for the delay in intimation due to postal holiday and office closure, invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and the principle of impossibility. The interest rate awarded by the forums was held to be slightly higher and was reduced to 9% from the date of receipt of the letter.
Issues:
Whether the forfeiture of earnest money was valid when the refusal to accept the allotment was delayed due to postal holiday and office closure, and whether the interest rate awarded was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi:
Communication of non-acceptance was delayed by postal holiday and office closure, attracting Section 10 of the General Clauses Act; the forfeiture was not sustainable, and interest was reduced to 9% from the date of receipt.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the order of refund with reduced interest is upheld.
(A) The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 10) provides that if a prescribed period for doing any act expires on a day which is not a working day or the office is closed, the act may be done on the next day on which the office is open without being deemed to be late. This principle that the law does not compel the performance of the impossible applies where a party is prevented from performing within the stipulated time due to circumstances beyond his control, such as a postal holiday or office closure. In the present appeal, the respondent communicated his refusal to accept the allotment through a registered letter which was received by the appellant-HUDA on 3.12.2001, after the closure of the HUDA office on 1.12.2001 and 2.12.2001 and on the postal holiday of 30.11.2001. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with the principles under the General Clauses Act, govern the timeline for acceptance or rejection of the allotment and the consequent forfeiture of earnest money.
(B) The core legal principles include the doctrine of impossibility performance where a party is not bound to perform an act if it is impossible due to external causes, the application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to extend timelines to the next working day, and the principle that a party cannot be penalized for delays caused by circumstances beyond their control. The case also underscores the principle that strict forfeiture may not be sustained if the non-intimation was caused by postal holidays or office closures.
Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for and paid a deposit for an allotted residential plot. He communicated his refusal to accept the allotment via registered letter, which was received after the HUDA office was closed and on a postal holiday. The HUDA forfeited the earnest money following the non-acceptance within the stipulated period, leading to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum ordered refund with interest, a position affirmed by the State Commission and dismissed in revision by the National Commission.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent could not be held liable for the delay in intimation due to postal holiday and office closure, invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and the principle of impossibility. The interest rate awarded by the forums was held to be slightly higher and was reduced to 9% from the date of receipt of the letter.
Issues:
Whether the forfeiture of earnest money was valid when the refusal to accept the allotment was delayed due to postal holiday and office closure, and whether the interest rate awarded was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi:
Communication of non-acceptance was delayed by postal holiday and office closure, attracting Section 10 of the General Clauses Act; the forfeiture was not sustainable, and interest was reduced to 9% from the date of receipt.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the order of refund with reduced interest is upheld.
ORDER
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. The controversy in this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent No. 1 applied for allotment of a plot in response to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA ). The application was for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards, and deposit of Rs. 46,625/- was made on 26.12.2000. The HUDA intimated respondent No. 1 by letter dated 30.10.2001 that plot No. 2205 in Sector 65, Faridabad has been allotted to him. The respondent No. 1 purportedly, on the basis of Clause-4 of the letter, sent a registered letter on 28.11.2001, intimating HUDA that he is not interested in accepting the allotment. The letter was received on 3.12.2001 by HUDA. Referring to Clause-4 of the letter, HUDA directed forfeiture of the earnest money deposited. A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act ) was lodged by respondent No. 1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short the District Forum ). By order dated 31.3.2003, the District Forum directed refund of the amount deposited along with 12% interest with effect from the date of deposit till realisation. The matter was carried in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (in short the State Commission ) by HUDA. By order dated 9.6.2003, the State Forum reduced the interest to 10% but otherwise affirmed the order of the District Forum. The matter was carried in revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the National Commission ). By the impugned order dated 4.2.2004, the revision has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-HUDA submits that there was clear stipulation about forfeiture in case the intimation regarding non-acceptance is not given within 30 days. Therefore, according to him, the forfeiture was in order and the direction for refund within interest is not sustainable in law.
4. The respondent No. 1, who appears in person, submitted that the non-acceptance was conveyed by letter dated 28.11.2001. The HUDA office was closed on 1.12.2001 and 2.12.2001. 30.11.2001 was a postal holiday and, therefore, on the next day after the closure period, i.e. 3.12.2001, the letter was served on HUDA and therefore the orders of the Forums below do not suffer from any infirmity.
5. What is stipulated in Clause-4 of the letter dated 30.10.2001 is a communication regarding refusal to accept the allotment. This was done on 28.11.2001. Respondent No. 1 cannot be put to loss for the closure of the office of HUDA on 1.12.2001 and 2.12.2001 and the postal holiday on 30.11.2001. In fact he had no control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be pressed into service. Apart from the said Section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is the general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva Chari v. Ramaswami Reddi (1898) (8) Madras Law Journal 265). The underlying object of the principle is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then the act should be considered to have been done within that period if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The reason is that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. (See Hossein Ally v. Donzelle) ILR 5 Calcutta 906). Every consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle which underlies Section 10 of the General Clauses Act should be applied in cases where it does not otherwise in terms apply. The principles underlying are lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus curiae nemi nem gravabit (the act of Court shall prejudice no man). Above being the position, there is nothing infirm in the orders passed by the Forums below. However, the rate of interest fixed appears to be slightly on the higher side and is reduced to 9% to be paid with effect from 3.12.2001, i.e., the date on which the letter was received by HUDA.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Appeal disposed of.
***************