JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Issue notice. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Apart from other grievances, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been rendered remedy less in law as the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, has refused to hear the appeal, whereas, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, on appeal having been preferred before him has held that it is the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who alone is competent to entertain the appeal and decide the same. 3. It is more than settled that a person cannot be left remedy less. Therefore, without going into the thicket of the facts and without going into the merits of the case, I feel that the ends of justice shall be achieved in case the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, instead of Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, hear the appeal. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, is directed to decide the appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner(Appeals), Shimla, certain developments have taken place which entitle the petitioner to raise additional grounds. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) That the petitioner shall file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, latest by 28th February, 2019. (ii) In the event of appeal having been filed within the stipulated period, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st March, 2019. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.