C.R. No. 5873 of 2007 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5873 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 16, 2009
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development,
Punjab and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Sukhwinder Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. B.B.S. Teji, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate for the respondent.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order, passed by the learned
court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of
delay of 488 days in filing the appeal was dismissed and consequently the appeal
as well.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that he was entitled to fixation of pay as re-employed ex-
serviceman in terms of the rules and instructions issued for the purpose. The suit
was decreed on 18.2.2005 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar.
Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 488 days was filed
by the petitioners before the learned appellate court on 31.7.2006 with the plea
that file of the case remained pending at various levels in the government set up
where sometimes, opinion was that the case was fit for filing appeal, whereas
sometimes it was that the case was not fit for filing the appeal, hence the delay
occurred. However, the cause shown by the petitioners was not found to be
sufficient. Accordingly, learned appellate court dismissed the application and
consequently the appeal as well. It is this order which is impugned in the present
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the government
functioning and bureaucratic set up, the files move at snail’s speed. The attitude of
the officers/officials dealing with the file is totally impersonal and as has been
explained in the application filed before the learned court below, the file was dealt
C.R. No. 5873 of 2007 [2]
with at various levels where in the process, the delay occurred. The technicalities
should give way to the substantial justice and the appeal filed by the petitioners
should be heard on merits instead of dismissing the same on account of delay.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
a bare perusal of the contents of the application show that all what the petitioners
wanted the court to decide was a stale claim in the belated appeal filed by them.
The contents clearly show that various officers of the petitioners were indecisive.
In fact, they were not clear as to whether the appeal should be filed or not. The
circumstances, as have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay,
do not make out ground for condoning such a huge delay. After the period for
filing the appeal had expired, certain rights had been vested in the respondent
which should not be taken away lightly.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned order, wherein the contents of the
application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay have been referred to,
shows that after the judgment was delivered by the trial court on 18.2.2005,
certified copy thereof was applied on the same date, which was prepared on
1.3.2005 and delivered in the office of District Attorney on 3.3.2005, who opining
that the case is not fit for filing the appeal forwarded the same to DPL, Punjab vide
order dated 7.3.2005, who also agreeing with the opinion expressed by the District
Attorney, forwarded the judgment and decree to the Secretary to the Government
of Punjab, Housing and Urban Development vide letter dated 16.3.2005. As to
what happened thereafter is not evident from the order. Simultaneously, District
Town Planner, Amritsar vide letter dated 13.4.2005 sought legal opinion from the
District Attorney, Amritsar regarding the case being fit/unfit for filing the appeal.
District Attorney, Amritsar, vide letter dated 21.4.2005 intimated the District
Town Planner that the Chief Town Planner and DPL, Punjab had already
considered the case to be not fit for filing appeal, which was conveyed by the
District Town Planner to the Chief Town Planner. The Senior Town Planner,
Amritsar sought certain documents from the District Town Planner vide letter
dated 18.5.2005 which were supplied on 15.6.2005 which, in turn, were sent to
Chief Town Planner on 27.6.2005. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, vide letter dated 8.9.2005, sought certain information and
documents from the Chief Town Planner who sent the required documents vide
letter dated 5.10.2005. As the finance was involved, the matter was sent to the
Finance Department who opined that the order is required to be challenged in
appeal. As to when they had received the documents and when the opinion was
C.R. No. 5873 of 2007 [3]
expressed is not forthcoming. All what is mentioned is that vide letter dated
10.5.2006, Chief Town Planner, Punjab was directed to file appeal. Thereafter,
District Town Planner, Amritsar requested District Attorney, Amritsar vide letter
dated 15.6.2006 to file appeal. The District Attorney replied back vide letter dated
19.6.2006 that the appeal cannot be filed without fresh instructions from the DPL,
Punjab. The matter was again referred back. Thereafter, Joint Secretary to the
Government of Punjab, Housing and Urban Development, vide letter dated
11.7.2006 accorded sanction for filing the appeal and thereafter the same was filed
on 31.7.2006.
The aforesaid sequence of facts shows that the attitude and the
manner in which the case was dealt with at appropriate stages was totally casual.
Once different authorities had already opined that the case was not fit for filing
appeal , on the objection raised by the Finance Department, the appeal was filed. It
was for the petitioners to devise a system whereby a final decision regarding filing
or non-filing of an appeal is taken by an authority which is competent and which
can go into the merits of the controversy as well. In the present case, different
authorities were having different opinions. This cannot be said to be a reasonable
ground for condonation of delay of 488 days in filing the appeal. If the State
authorities cannot set their home in order, the limitation cannot be re-written to
condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same
is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
16.1.2009
mk