Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ordered that such bodies have to pronounce their verdicts within a month after the conclusion of hearing.
In an order passed on July 2, the High Court noted that even constitutional courts have to deliver verdicts within time limit.
Hence, he deemed it fit to set a time limit for passing final orders after hearing is completed by the statutory authorities until the government formulates specific guidelines in that regard.
The following are the guidelines to be followed by all statutory authorities while considering appeals, revisions and other statutory applications/petitions:
After hearing is concluded, the statutory authorities should pass final orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days.
If there is over a month’s delay in passing final orders after concluding the hearing, the order should reflect the reason for the delay. The reason can be considered by the higher authorities to find out whether there is any prejudice to the parties because of the delay. If no proper reason is mentioned and there is prejudice to the parties because of the delay, that itself would be a reason to set aside that order.
If no orders are passed within three months after concluding the hearing, the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities should rehear the parties for passing final orders. Otherwise, the order passed by such authority can be set aside for that reason itself unless there are compelling reasons to sustain the same.
If orders are passed after six months from the date of concluding the hearing by the appellate authority, revisional authority and other statutory authorities, those orders are to be set aside for that reason alone unless there are compelling reasons to sustain such orders.
Source: Barandbench
