Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 310 (PNJ)

Prem Kumar Verma v. Municipal Committee

2004-03-17

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2004
Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. Challenge thrown in this civil writ petition is to the exparte order dated 26.8.1983 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 21,150/- and the order dated 28.2.1985 (Annexure P1) passed in appeal by the Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that the Municipal Committee, Malout, held auction of the weigh bridge (kanda) in question, for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983. He also participated in the auction. And, as he was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted. In accordance with the terms of the auction, he deposited the required sum of Rs. 3750/- with the Municipal Committee (respondent No. 1) as advance rent of three months. However, immediately thereafter, he found that the weight bridge Was not working. He addressed two letters dated 5.4.1982 and 12.4.1982 to the Municipal Committee in this regard but no action was taken by the Committee for its repair. Therefore, he did not execute the required agreement/rent deed nor he furnished the guarantor/surety for the purpose. So, he did not become tenant of the Committee nor he paid the rent for the remaining period of lease. He, instead, requested the Committee for return of the amount of Rs. 3750/- already deposited by him. But the Committee did not return it. Instead the Committee filed application under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 against him for recovery of rent for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983 along with interest, amounting to Rs. 21,150/. In that, he was proceeded exparte. He applied for setting aside of the exparte order. But, the same was dismissed and order for recovery of Rs. 21,150/- as arrears of rent for the period 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983 along with interest was passed against him. He challenged that order in appeal which too was dismissed by the appellate authority viz. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard both sides and have also gone through the records. 4. The petitioner had been ordered to be proceeded exparte on 8.7.1983 by the Collector. He challenged that order in appeal which too was dismissed by the appellate authority viz. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard both sides and have also gone through the records. 4. The petitioner had been ordered to be proceeded exparte on 8.7.1983 by the Collector. On 12.8.1983 he filed an application Annexure P5, stating that he could not appear in court on the date fixed i.e. 8.7.1983 due to sudden illness and as such, exparte proceedings be set aside against him and he be allowed to participate in the case. On that day, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the Committee. The Collector, however, did not pass any order on his application on that day i.e. on 12.8.1983 nor he permitted him to cross-examine the witnesses of the Municipal Committee who were examined on that very day. Ultimately on 26.8.1983 the Collector passed order, Annexure P2, ordering recovery of the rent in question and interest from him. Simultaneously, he dismissed his application for setting aside of the order vide which he had been proceeded exparte by recording the following order (Annexure P6): "Application produced before me, while on tour. Heard and is dismissed and consigned to the file. Sd/- x x Collector, Muktsar, 26.8.1983." 5. It is clear from the above re-produced order that it was passed by the Collector without any application of mind. Besides, the application for setting aside of the exparte proceedings, Annexure P-5 had been moved by the petitioner on 12.8.1983 when the recovery proceedings were fixed for recording evidence of the Committee and not on 26.8.1983 as wrongly mentioned in the above reproduced order. Inspite of that the Collector neither passed any order on the application moved for the setting aside of the exparte order nor permitted him to participate in the recovery proceedings, even thenceforth. Instead on a later date, he dismissed that application by passing a non-speaking order on 26.8.1983 on which date he passed the final order in the recovery proceedings also. This was patently illegal. The least which the Collector was expected to do, under law, was to have permitted him to participate in the remaining recovery proceedings which were yet to be concluded. But, he did not do this. This was patently illegal. The least which the Collector was expected to do, under law, was to have permitted him to participate in the remaining recovery proceedings which were yet to be concluded. But, he did not do this. That being so, the impugned order, Annexure P2, is liable to be quashed, and so is, consequently, the order passed in appeal, Annexure P1." 6. Both the impugned orders, Annexures P1 and P2 are, therefore, quashed. The competent authority shall, however, be at liberty to proceed further in the matter after deciding the application of the petitioner, Annexure P5 by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 30.4.2004.