JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-Opposite parties. 2. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties no.6 to 11. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the auction proceeding of the assets of the company held on 13.06.1992 as well as sale confirmation order dated 17.07.1992 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also the order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 23.03.1993 by which an objection against the auction sale dated 13.06.1992 filed under Rule 285-I of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1952') was rejected and also the order of Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 06.11.1995 by which the revision of the petitioner against the order of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut was rejected. 4. Factual matrix of the case is as follows:- 5. The petitioner-company is a registered company engaged in the production of transformer, bulb and other electrical goods and because of labour unrest in the factory, production in the company was put in halt and company suffered huge loss. Therefore the company could not clear outstanding towards sales tax, electricity dues and dues of Small Scale Industries Corporation. 6. On failing to clear the outstanding of electricity dues as well as Small Scale Industry Corporation, a recovery certificate was issued by the Collector, Ghaziabad of the amount of Rs.1,39,663.58/- to recover the electricity dues as well as the dues of Small Scale Industry. Thereafter in pursuance of the recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad property of the petitioner-company was attached and subsequently same was auctioned on 13.06.1992 which was subsequently confirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.07.1992 along with delay condonation application. Against the aforesaid auction proceeding, the petitioner-company has filed an objection dated 19.08.1992 under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and violation of statutory provisions but the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut rejected the objection of the petitioner by the order dated 23.03.1993 on the ground that objection dated 19.08.1992 filed by the petitioner is time barred because as per rule 285-I of the Rule 1952 it could be filed within 30 days from the date of sale. 7. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.1993 of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, the petitioner preferred Revision No.15-92-93, Zenith Electricals Private Limited vs. State of U.P and others before the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow. 8. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the objection of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that objection of the petitioner is time barred or the same was filed after 30 days of sale and delay condonation application of the petitioner was not considered. It is further submitted that if there is no bar for condoning the delay then the Limitation Act applies and delay can be condoned if the application is filed along with affidavit giving sufficient explanation of filing the delay. 9. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Board of Revenue is absolutely cryptic in nature and no reasoning was given. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire auction proceeding deserves to be set aside being conducted in violation of Rule 283A, Rule 285-A and Rule 285-J of the Rules, 1952. 10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision for condoning the delay in Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952, therefore Limitation Act does not apply. It was further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that auction proceedings was conducted as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1952 therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, two questions arises for consideration of this Court : (I) Whether delay condonation application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1963') is maintainable in the proceeding under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 before the Commissioner and Commissioner has power to condone the delay in filing the objection which were filed beyond the period of thirty days ? (II) Whether the auction proceedings in question has been conducted in violation of Rules 285-II and 285-H of the Rules, 1952 ? 12. The first question mentioned above came into consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5212 of 1987 (Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). (II) Whether the auction proceedings in question has been conducted in violation of Rules 285-II and 285-H of the Rules, 1952 ? 12. The first question mentioned above came into consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5212 of 1987 (Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). That Division Bench in decision dated 04.09.1997 clearly observed in paragraph no.3 that proceedings before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 is judicial proceeding and application under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 is maintainable for condoning the delay in filing the objection. Paragraph no.3 of the Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) is being reproduced as under : "3. As the judgment of Division Bench in Indu Engineering (supra) relied on by the Commissioner for rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and objection of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 19.2.1987 has been reversed by the Full Bench, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The proceedings initiated on an objection filed under Rule 285-I of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules have been held to be Judicial proceeding. Hence we hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the proceedings under Rule 285-I and the application of the petitioners filed for condonation of delay ought to have been decided on merits which has not been done by the Commissioner." 13. Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 itself mentioned that within thirty days from the date of sale, an application/objection may be made to Commissioner to set-aside the sale on the ground mentioned in the Rules, 1952. But this Rule itself does not prohibit the Commissioner to condone the delay if aforesaid application/objection against the sale is filed beyond thirty days, therefore, in the provision itself, there is no prohibition for condoning the delay in filing objection beyond thirty days. But this Rule itself does not prohibit the Commissioner to condone the delay if aforesaid application/objection against the sale is filed beyond thirty days, therefore, in the provision itself, there is no prohibition for condoning the delay in filing objection beyond thirty days. Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 is being reproduced as under : "285-I. (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake." 14. Considering the above legal position, this Court is of the view that if any objection under Section-285-I of the Rules, 1952 is filed before the Commissioner then application under Section-5 of the Act, 1963 is very well applicable and Commissioner has an authority to condone the delay in filing an objection. 15. So far as second question is concerned regarding violation of provision of Rules, 1952 in conducting the impugned auction proceeding/sale, same can very well be dealt with by the Commissioner while considering the objection of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the view that no finding is required at this stage. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in number of judgements already observed that reason must be recorded by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority while passing an order. This Court also expressed its strong displeasure about the order passed by Board of Revenue in revision because no finding was recorded while dismissing the revision it was dismissed only on the ground that it has no force therefore order of Board of Revenue passed in revision also deserves to be set-aside. 17. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the view that order dated 23.03.1993 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut as well as order dated 06.11.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow deserves to be quashed and hence it is quashed and a direction is issued to Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the application of petitioner for condonation of delay in filing objection dated 19.08.1992 before him in light of observations made above. 18. 18. It is further directed that till disposal of objection of the petitioner under Section 285-I of the Rules, 1952, status quo should be maintained regarding the property of petitioner which was subject matter of impugned auction proceedings. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed.