Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1813 (HP)

Naggan Patt v. Manoj Kumar

2016-08-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this writ petition is the order dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Registrar (Audit) Co-operative Societies, H.P. Shimla, whereby and whereunder, the delay which has crept-in in filing the Revision Petition, has been condoned, for short ‘the impugned order’. 2. Heard. We are of the considered view that while passing the impugned order, the concerned authority has not applied its mind for the following reasons. 3. This Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2014 passed in CWP No. 5697 of 2014, titled as Manoj Kumar versus State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-7) provided that the period spent in pursuing the said writ petition was to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is apt to reproduce para-2 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that the period spent in pursuing this writ petition shall be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” 4. We have not condoned the delay, which has crept-in w.e.f. 13.08.2013 till filing of the writ petition i.e. 21.07.2014 and the delay w.e.f. 26.08.2014 to 26.11.2014. It was for the concerned authority to apply its mind and record satisfaction whether the petitioner before him, had carved out sufficient cause to condone the delay. 5. We are of the view that the concerned authority has passed a non-speaking order. 6. Accordingly, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and direct the concerned authority to pass fresh order, after hearing the parties. Ordered accordingly. 7. The parties are directed to cause appearance before the concerned authority on 13.09.2016. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.