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 6th March, 2014 as per the death certificate annexed in the compilation of documents but in the impugned order the date is erroneously mentioned as 24th October, 2013. 5. In July 2014, children of Applicant No.1-father, who died on 30th 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 18th 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. ] SNEHA JAYPRAKASH BANG Digitally signed by SNEHA JAYPRAKASH BANG Date: 2026.02.16 12:59:30 +0530