Hazari Lal vs The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others

Rajive Bhalla, J.—The short point that arises for adjudication is whether delay of thirteen years in filing the appeal by the Gram Panchayat could be condoned without assigning any reason. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Collector has not assigned any reason much less made any reference to any tangible plea that could have been a ground to condone delay of thirteen years in filing the appeal. It is argued that as a quasi-judicial authority, draws its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only if the appeal is properly constituted i.e. filed within limitation prescribed by the relevant statute, the Collector was required to pass a detailed order while condoning delay in filing the appeal.

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that reasons for delay have been assigned in the order passed by the Commissioner, on a revision filed by the petitioners. It is further contended that as the Gram Panchayat was not aware of the ex-parte order and it appears that the then sarpanch colluded with the petitioner, the Collector was justified in condoning delay in filing the appeal by the Gram Panchayat.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

The operative part of order dated 30.12.2003, passed by the Collector, condoning delay, reads as follows: -

After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the record it is evident that exparte proceedings were ordered against the Gram Panchayat in the court below and at that time Gram Panchayat could not defend. The delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. The file for arguments may be put up on 20.01.2004.

A quasi-judicial authority, draws its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only if the appeal is properly constituted, i.e., filed within the limitation prescribed, by the relevant statute. Where an appeal is beyond limitation, an appellate authority, may condone delay but only after satisfying itself that the cause for delay is bonafide, legal and valid. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector reveals that after recording submissions made by counsel for the parties, the Collector has condoned delay, of thirteen years without considering the submissions made, much less recording any reasons. An argument that reasons are available in orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, in our considered opinion, is irrelevant as a revisional authority cannot provide reasons where none has been furnished by the appellate authority.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Rewari to consider the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal afresh and decide the same together, within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Rewari, on 11.09.2012.