MR. SHAKIL SAYYED KADIR HASSAN AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,

      SJB                              1                     49-FA-13-2016.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         FIRST APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2016

Shakil Sayyed Kadir Hassan & Ors.                    ….Appellants/Applicants

            Versus

The Union Of India Represented
By The General Manager                     .…Respondent
__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Mohan Rao for the Appellants/Applicants.
Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w. Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________

                                    CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
                                    DATED : 12th FEBRUARY 2026


P. C. :

1.        This appeal challenges order dated 18th July, 2014 passed by the
Railway Tribunal dismissing Miscellaneous Application filed by the
Applicant on the ground that the request for substituting legal heirs of
Applicant No.1 has not established relationship and also the delay in filing
the Miscellaneous Application is not satisfactory.

2.        The original application was filed by the father and mother of the
deceased son who died in accident. The original application was filed on
31st October, 2003.

3.        On 30th of May, 2010, Applicant No.1 father died. However, this fact
was not communicated to the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the
original application in favour of the Applicants on 16th October, 2010.
     SJB                             2                       49-FA-13-2016.doc


4.    Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, Applicant No.2-mother
received her share of the compensation However, it is not clear when such
compensation was received. Applicant No.2-mother died on 6 th March,
2014 as per the death certificate annexed in the compilation of documents
but in the impugned order the date is erroneously mentioned as 24 th
October, 2013.

5.    In July 2014, children of Applicant No.1-father, who died on 30 th
May, 2010, made an application to the Tribunal to bring themselves as legal
heirs and for modification of the original order so that the share of
compensation of Applicant No.1 can be received by the legal heirs. In the
miscellaneous application the delay is also sought to be explained by stating
lack of knowledge and mental disturbance and inadvertence. Alongwith the
application various documents like PAN Card, Election Card and Aadhaar
Card etc. were annexed to establish the relationship between original
Applicant No.1 father and the present applicants who are children of
Applicant No.1.

6.    The Tribunal in the impugned order has stated that no legal
documents of relationship have been produced and the documents which
are produced do not prove that the applicants are the legal heirs. The
Tribunal further states that no convincing and acceptable reason is given for
the delay of 2 years and 3 months.

7.    I have heard learned counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent.

8.    The first issue which the Tribunal should have decided was whether
the delay could be condoned. If the delay is not condoned, then the
Tribunal should not have given any views on the merits of the application.
In the instant case in the application, the Applicants have stated that due to
                              SJB                             3                      49-FA-13-2016.doc


                        lack of knowledge, mental disturbance and on account of inadvertence they
                        did not inform the Advocate. The Tribunal has not given reasons as to why
                        these reasons are not acceptable and convincing. In my view, merely saying
                        that reasons are not acceptable would not amount to the reasoning but it
                        would amount to a conclusion without reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal
                        should have given reasons as to why the explanation given was not
                        convincing and acceptable. I do not find such reasons. Therefore, the
                        impugned order dated 18th July, 2014 is set aside and is remanded back to
                        the Tribunal to give reasons before coming to the conclusion as to whether
                        the delay is to be condoned or not to be condoned. If the Tribunal comes to
                        a conclusion that the delay has to be condoned then only in that situation
                        the Tribunal should examine the documents annexed to the application and
                        give its findings and reasons whether the applicants have established legal
                        relationship. If the delay is not condoned then the Tribunal should not give
                        its view on the merits of the application.

                        9.     In view of above, the impugned order dated 18 th July, 2014 is set
                        aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order on the miscellaneous
                        application filed by the applicants in the light of what is observed above.

                        10.    Appeal is disposed of in above terms.


                                                                           [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]




           Digitally signed
           by SNEHA
           JAYPRAKASH
SNEHA      BANG
JAYPRAKASH
           Date:
BANG       2026.02.16
           12:59:30
           +0530