Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1971 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-09-14

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed by issuing the writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to restore the Revision Petition to its original number and may be heard on merit. (iii) That the record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iv) That the present Civil Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (v) That any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Annexure P/6 quashing of which has been sought by way of the present writ petition is an order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. in Miscellaneous Application No. 07/10 dated 27.04.2010 vide which, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner for restoration of revision petition which was dismissed in default on 11.04.1996. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the present petitioner had filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order dated 12.04.1994 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner, Mandi Division in Revision Petition No. 110/93. The Revision Petition so filed before learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed in default by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 11.04.1996, which reads as under: “Case called. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel is present today. On the last date of hearing the petitioner/applicant Anil Kumar was present and informed him about the date of hearing. Thus, he was fully aware about the date of hearing. There is no written request or any explanation on behalf of the petitioner or his counsel for the adjournment of the case. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing his case. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed in default.” 4. Thus, he was fully aware about the date of hearing. There is no written request or any explanation on behalf of the petitioner or his counsel for the adjournment of the case. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing his case. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed in default.” 4. A Miscellaneous application for restoration of the said revision petition was filed by the present petitioner before the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 15.12.2009, i.e. after 13 years alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of revision petition. 5. The grounds which are mentioned in the application so filed for restoring the revision petition which was dismissed in default on 11.04.1996 were that the petitioner could not put in appearance before the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.04.1996 as he was not feeling well and on the said date personal presence of the petitioner was not necessary/required. As per the petitioner, the counsel engaged by him did not appear on 11.04.1996 nor did he inform the petitioner about the fact that the case stood dismissed in default. It was further the case of the petitioner that each time, when he asked his counsel about the fate of the case, he was told that the case was pending. Further, as per the petitioner, when he came to Shimla in the month of November, 2009 and enquired from the Registry of the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), then he came to know that the case had been dismissed in default as far back in the year 1996. Thereafter, without any further delay, he contacted another counsel, who inspected the file and after preparation of the application, the same was filed for restoration of revision petition. Same reasons were given in the application so filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 6. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010 dismissed the application so filed by the petitioner by holding that before the case was dismissed in default on 11.04.1996, on the previous date of hearing, petitioner Anil Kumar was present and he had been informed about the next date of hearing. 6. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010 dismissed the application so filed by the petitioner by holding that before the case was dismissed in default on 11.04.1996, on the previous date of hearing, petitioner Anil Kumar was present and he had been informed about the next date of hearing. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) held that despite this, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 11.04.1996 and the application for restoration of the case which was dismissed in default was filed after more than 13 years and 8 months and there was no cogent explanation for the inordinate delay in filing of the application except blaming the counsel which could not be verified. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the case put forth by the petitioner that he could not personally appear on 11.04.1996 on account of ill health and he had informed his counsel to put in appearance on the said date, who did not appear and also did not inform him about the factum of the case having been dismissed in default also seemed to be not cogent. It was further held by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) that a litigant is always anxious to know about the fate of his case especially one who has engaged a counsel. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) further held that it was the duty of the petitioner to have had enquired about the fate of his case and there was no cogent explanation as to why he did not do so for such a long period. By assigning the said reasons, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the application for restoration of revision petition. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant records of the case. 9. The order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has been assailed on the grounds that the same is inter-alia arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been further mentioned in the petition that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that a client cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault of his counsel. It is on these grounds that the impugned order was assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me. It has been further mentioned in the petition that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that a client cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault of his counsel. It is on these grounds that the impugned order was assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me. 10. In my considered view, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order was arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India call for outright rejection. The order under challenge is a quasi judicial order which has been passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of statutory powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. It is not understood as to how an order dismissing an application for restoration of revision petition which revision petition was dismissed almost 13 years back can be said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice also merits outright rejection for the simple reason that the order has been passed by the authority after hearing the petitioner and it is not even the ground of challenge in this Court that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. 11. Similarly, a challenge to the impugned order on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India per se demonstrates that the petition in fact has been filed without due application of mind. This is evident from the fact that Article 16 of the Constitution of India which deals with equality in the matters of employment has nothing to do in a matter wherein a quasi judicial authority dismisses an application filed for restoration of a revision petition, that too filed under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Similarly, it is not understood as to how an order passed by quasi judicial authority in exercise of its statutory powers can be said to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which Article deals with the life and liberty of an individual. 12. Similarly, it is not understood as to how an order passed by quasi judicial authority in exercise of its statutory powers can be said to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which Article deals with the life and liberty of an individual. 12. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) demonstrates that the same is a reasoned and a speaking order. In my considered view, the findings returned by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the application filed for restoration of revision petition are cogent and justified. It is apparent from the averments made in the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the revision petition as well as the averments which are made in the application for condonation of delay that there is no cogent explanation given in the same as to why the application for restoration of the revision petition was being filed after more than 13 years. The reason given in the said application wherein the blame has been fairly and squarely levelled on the counsel concerned is neither corroborated nor substantiated by any material produced on record to this effect by the petitioner. It is not mentioned in the application as to who was the counsel engaged by him during the pendency of the revision petition before learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and what efforts, if any, were made by him to enquire about the fate of his case after 11.04.1996. In fact, even the name of the counsel who was allegedly instructed by the petitioner to put in appearance on 11.04.1996 has not been mentioned in the application. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the fact that the case was to come up before the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.04.1996 because it is apparent from the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) that on the date previous to 11.04.1996, the petitioner was present and he was made aware about the next date of hearing. 13. In view of this, in my considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality with the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.04.2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for restoration of revision petition after more than 13 years was dismissed. 13. In view of this, in my considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality with the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.04.2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for restoration of revision petition after more than 13 years was dismissed. Order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) besides being a speaking and reasoned order, otherwise also does not calls for any interference on merits because in my considered view, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of revision petition which was dismissed as far back as on 11.04.1996 in view of the fact that the petitioner was not able to substantiate with any cogent explanation as to why the said application was filed for restoration of the revision petition after more than 13 years and 8 months from the date the revision petition was so dismissed in default. 14. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.