Judgment :- D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. Yet another appeal purporting to be under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court and claiming to be by a person who was a non party to the order questioned in this appeal and on the premise that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 09.07.2009 in Writ Petition No.19066 of 2009 not only adversely affects the appellant’s interest, but also has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and therefore, the appellant should be permitted to appeal against this order by granting special leave for which purpose appellant has filed Misc. Application (Misc.W.13135 of 2009). A further application (Misc.W.13136 of 2009) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of 137 days delay in preferring the appeal which is explained to be under the circumstances of the appellant on the premise that the developments were not to the knowledge of the appellant who was holding the post of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had relinquished the post on the day the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order and developments thereafter being not to the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant also being of the bonafide that the concerned persons will have taken commensurate action and ultimately though such action, it appears, was taken in fact by filing a Writ Appeal No.3426/2009 against the very order through the appeal having came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of the judgment dated 06.11.2009, it has now become imminent for the appellant to present the present appeal by seeking permission to prosecute the appeal and also for praying to condone the delay to seek redressal of the grievance which the appellant has and to get over the affectation that the appellant has suffered in terms of the impugned order. 2. There are two more Misc. Applications, one for production of additional documents (Misc.W.13137/09) and another seeking for an order of stay of the order appealed against in this appeal (Misc.W.13138/09). 3. This Court had issued notice to the respondent namely, M/S. Green Ply Industries Limited, at dealer under the provisions of KST Act and KVAT Act, who was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.19066 of 2009 and the person at whose instance, this Court had issued a notice, as per our order dated 20.01.2010. 4. 3. This Court had issued notice to the respondent namely, M/S. Green Ply Industries Limited, at dealer under the provisions of KST Act and KVAT Act, who was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.19066 of 2009 and the person at whose instance, this Court had issued a notice, as per our order dated 20.01.2010. 4. The appellant is represented by Sri E. S. Indiresh, learned Government Pleader and the respondent is represented by Sri. A Satyanarayana, learned Counsel. 5. We have heard Sri E.S. Indiresh as well as Sri Satyanarayana. 6. Submission of Sri E.S. Indiresh, learned Government Pleader is that the appellant had taken necessary bonafide action and very timely action, that in fact the only grievance of the writ petitioner being not getting a refund amount in terms of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Appeals and neither allowing refund nor the Commissioner as the Head of the Department taking up any further action against the order and in such circumstances, when the writ petitioner had caused a legal notice to be issued claiming for refund, the present appellant who was functioning as the Commissioner had immediately taken action on the very day of the receipt of the legal notice by bringing it to the notice of the concerned Joint Commissioner who was in-charge of Enforcement and in such circumstances, no remiss or negligence or lack of performance of duty could have been attributed to the appellant and at any rate no cost should have been levied on the respondents (officers of the Commercial Department) in the Writ petition, and further the amount could not have been made recoverable personally from the salary of the appellant under the impugned order and therefore, the appeal needs examination and to be allowed, etc. 7. In support of his submission, Sri E.S. Indiresh, would draw our attention to a Circular issued by the Commissioner himself bearing No.45/94-95. Dated 02.03.1995 and para 3 & 4 of which reads as under:- 3. Pursuant to the instructions of Government in this reference cited above, therefore, it is hereby directed that refund orders involving a sum of Rs.1 lakh and above which are to be signed and issued by the concerned assessing authorities shall be countersigned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (Admn.). 4. Pursuant to the instructions of Government in this reference cited above, therefore, it is hereby directed that refund orders involving a sum of Rs.1 lakh and above which are to be signed and issued by the concerned assessing authorities shall be countersigned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (Admn.). 4. This instructions will be scrupulously followed by all the Departmental officers.” Indicating therein that refund orders involving a sum of Rs.1,00 lakh and above which have to be signed by the concerned assessing authorities, shall be countersigned by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (Administration) and such instructions have to be scrupulously followed by all subordinate officers and in the background of the Circular being current and in operation on the day, there was no responsibility on the Commissioner, but entire responsibility was on the Joint Commissioner and therefore, the appellant could not have been made personally liable to pay any cost which could be imposed by this Court. 8. Sri Sathyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would very vehemently oppose all prayers whether in the application or in the main appeal. 9. Submission is that the respondent is not only harassed in causing refund legitimately due to the respondent, but the appellant is taking up the matter at personal levels and heaping more harassment and difficulties to the appellant, etc. It is also submitted that the appellant has been mobilizing the entire Department and legging on them to take all possible legal actions against the respondent for any possible lapses even after he was transferred from the Commercial Taxes Department. 10. It is not necessary for this Court to go into-such extraneous submissions made at the Bar, but it suffers for our purpose, if we look into the legal aspects of the present appeal. 11. In the first instance, we are of the definite view, that the appeal itself is not tenable being against that part of the order of the learned Single Judge levying cost. An appeal does not lie only against the award of cost, even as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. We are of the view, that the appeal under Section 4 does not lie more so if it relates only to levy of cost. 12. The other circumstance we notice is that the very order had already been appealed against by all the three respondents, including the name of the present appellant namely Sri. We are of the view, that the appeal under Section 4 does not lie more so if it relates only to levy of cost. 12. The other circumstance we notice is that the very order had already been appealed against by all the three respondents, including the name of the present appellant namely Sri. B. A. Harisha Gowda S/o. Late B. A. Gowda, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, which position the appellant held at the relevant point of time, which resulted in the judgment dated 06.11.2009, this Court dismissing the appeal. One of us was a member of the Bench dismissing the appeal. 13. In view of the passionate submissions made by Sri E. S. Indiresh and the grievance sought to be explained by the appellant, claiming that the appellant did not have any opportunity at all to present his version etc. we have also looked into the merits of the order. 14. While, the facts are not in dispute, the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in para 6 reads as under: “6. In the circumstances, although a writ in the nature sought for by the petitioner is not permissible since under the Act the authorities are required to take action in accordance with law, nevertheless the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition. The writ petition is allowed in part and a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to either comply with the order of the Joint Commissioner – the 2nd respondent and refund the amount within a week from today or initiate such action as is permissible, in accordance with law over the said order. Costs are quantified at Rs.5,000/-, payable by the Department and to be recovered from the salary of the 1st respondent. 5. A perusal of this gives us the impression that if anyone has to be blamed in respect of the complaint of the writ petitioner and any responsibility, was to be fixed, it can only be on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on no other person. 16. 5. A perusal of this gives us the impression that if anyone has to be blamed in respect of the complaint of the writ petitioner and any responsibility, was to be fixed, it can only be on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on no other person. 16. Even if it was the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) who was passing an order, resulting in a refund to the assessee, if the order has not resulted in the actual refund of the amount, with no officer in the Commercial Taxes Department over and above the Commissioner, who can ensure that it is complied with, and as it is only the Commissioner who can ensure that the refund order is complied and not any other officer, if the order had not been complied and the petitioner had not realised the refund pursuant to the order, passed by the Joint Commissioner, as the administrative head of the Department of Commercial Taxes it is only the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility and has to be looked up to for the enforcement of the refund order. 17. To say that the Commissioner was not responsible, is only to disown the responsibility or rather a irresponsible statement and submission. 18. The fact that the Commissioner had responded to a legal notice caused at the instance of the writ petitioner and had brought it to the notice of the Joint Commissioner and reference was made to the Circular issued by the very Commissioner, only affirms the view that we have taken as above, for the reason that if the Commissioner issues a Circular and does not ensures the compliance of it by any of the subordinate officials and acts (or inacts!) quite contrary to the observations in para 4 to the effect. “These instructions will have to be scrupulously followed by all the departmental officers,” then it again it boomerangs on the Commissioner, about the manner in which he is manning his department and in ensuring compliance by the officers subordinate to him. 19. “These instructions will have to be scrupulously followed by all the departmental officers,” then it again it boomerangs on the Commissioner, about the manner in which he is manning his department and in ensuring compliance by the officers subordinate to him. 19. It cannot be again said that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department though is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department while passing an order as an appellate Commissioner exercise quasi judicial functions and as such the responsibility for ensuring implementation of that order on the administrative side lies only on the Commissioner and the non implementation of the order of the Joint Commissioner results in some hardship or grievance to an assessee or a dealer, it is the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility apart from the concerned Joint Commissioner by explaining himself for such inaction, as is warranted in law and depending upon the service conditions of the officer. 20. Be that as it may, we find absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned single Judge and more so in imposing cost on the department and in turn making it recoverable from the salary of the first respondent. 21. We find the appeal totally meritless and even frivolous and though we are inclined to mullet the appellant with further cost, as we have to only dismiss this appeal, we refrain from doing so only because of the irrelevant submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondent. 22. For the purpose of this appeal and the record, it has to be taken that Miscellaneous applications filed for seeking permission (Misc.W.13135/09) and for condonation of delay (Mis.W.13136/09) are ordered and miscellaneous applications filed for production of additional documents (Misc.W.13137/09) and grant of stay (Misc.W.13138/09) are dismissed. However, the appeal is dismissed on merits. 23. Before parting, we will have to observe that the order sheet in this appeal, which is prepared by the Registry, in the column meant for office note in the order sheet, does not make a mention of the factum of the very order appealed against in this appeal having been subject matter in an earlier like appeal in WA.3426/2009 and that appeal having already been dismissed in terms of judgment dated 06.11.2009. We fail to understand as to how a lapse of this nature can occur in the Registry. 24. We fail to understand as to how a lapse of this nature can occur in the Registry. 24. It is very import that the registry should have realized this position and should have put up a commensurate note about the order sought to be appealed against in the present appeal that it was already subject matter of the earlier appeal and as to whether it was affirmed or set aside in the earlier appeal. This will be a relevant input even at the threshold, during the examination of the present appeal, assuming that the present appeal is at the instance of a person who was not a party to the earlier proceedings or to the earlier appeal. 25. It is not the rights of individual parties that are so much in examination, but the tenability or legality of an order appealed against. While a person who was not a party to the proceedings. If finds that an order passed in his absence affects his interest, he can definitely seek leave of this Court to appeal against that order and leave can also be granted for such an exercise, the factum of earlier manner of disposal of an appeal against the very order is a very relevant aspect which should be necessarily brought to the notice of the Court herein or in any subsequent appeal at the instance of a non party. 26. We had directed the Registrar Judicial to come to the Court and we have directed him to take note and set right things in the Registry in the wake of such developments. 27. Though, the office note in the order sheet indicates that certain objections raised had been complied by the appellant on the spot, it is not known as to what were the office objections, whether it is one related to maintainability of the present appeal or otherwise, due to the fact that an earlier appeal had already been disposed of against the very order or if the objection was in the context of any other deficiencies. 28. Be that as it may. It is important that the Registrar (Judicial ) bestows his attention on this aspect and ensures that the Registry becomes aware and a commensurate note is always put up in the office note portion of the order-sheet if the very order appealed against in the subsequent appeal was subject matter of an earlier appeal. 28. Be that as it may. It is important that the Registrar (Judicial ) bestows his attention on this aspect and ensures that the Registry becomes aware and a commensurate note is always put up in the office note portion of the order-sheet if the very order appealed against in the subsequent appeal was subject matter of an earlier appeal. 29. We also notice that there is no proper pagination of the order sheet in this appeal. The order sheets are all loose sheets, joined as and when and all order sheets does not even bear the initial or signature of any responsible officer in the Registry. This again gives scope for manipulation of the order sheet and that will be a sad day for the High Court if the High Court records are amenable to the manipulation or machinations from the interested parties. 30. Sufficient measures should be taken to ensure that such possibilities are prevented. We direct the Registrar to look into this aspect and ensure in future, that the order sheet in all matters before the High Court is not only properly paginated but also that each order sheet bears the initials or signatures of the responsible officers of the rank of a Registrar or a Deputy Registrar and not below the rank of an Assistant Registrar, so that the matters do not go without the notice of atleast an Assistant Registrar. Ordered accordingly. 31. The Registrar (Judicial) to maintain a diary for follow up action and submit a report in this regard.