Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandrabhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 June, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                              1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    W.P. No.7231/2021
             (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 08.06.2021

      Heard through videoconferencing.

      Shri B.S. Dhakad, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri D.D. Bansal, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard

through Videoconferencing.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

18.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the appeal filed

by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation. It is

submitted that a case was registered against the petitioner on the basis

of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector Circle Khod, Sub

Division Pichhore, District Shivpuri mentioning the fact that with

respect to forest boundary Survey No.798/1366 assigned to Smt.

Rachna Sharma resident of District Shivpuri for extracting the Farsi

stone and outside the said survey no.799/34 in reserved area petitioner

transported 355.88 M³ farsi stone by extracting it illegally total value

to the tune of Rs.3,55,880/-. Therefore, the illegal extraction has been

done near the assigned area and the report dated 3.2.2012 was

submitted. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the case was registered

against the petitioner as well as against Smt. Rachna Sharma bearing

Case No.27/2011-12/A-67. It is submitted that without granting

proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the respondent No.3

arbitrary and illegally has passed an order on 28.06.2014 holding that

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7231/2021 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

the petitioner extracted and transported 355.88 M³ pharsi stone from

village Padora amounting to Rs. 3,55,880/- and imposed the fine to

the tune of Rs.14,23,520/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the

Commissioner Gwalior Division which was registered as Appeal No.

600/2017-18. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by order

dated 17.06.2019 and liberty of one month was granted to the

petitioner to file appeal before the respondent no.2. The petitioner

could not get the information with respect to disposal of the appeal

and as soon as the information of disposal of the appeal as not

maintainable was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner he

immediately applied for certified copy and filed the appeal before the

respondent no.2 along with an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act explaining the circumstances and reasons for delay.

But the respondent No.2 has not considered the aforesaid and has

dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation. It is submitted

that in the limitation application it was clearly mentioned that the

counsel has not informed the petitioner regarding dismissal of appeal

by the Commissioner holding it to be not maintainable whereas

initially the interim relief was granted to the petitioner by the

Commissioner himself in the appeal. It is further argued that looking

to the present scenario of COVID 19 pandemic also the delay in filing

the appeal should have been considered leniently. Counsel for the

petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to the order

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7231/2021 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

Annexure P/2 passed by the SDO Pichhore dated 8.6.2014 and has

argued that in the impugned order itself during the cross-examination

the Revenue Inspector has admitted the fact that at the time of

inspection of the spot he has not found any machinery or labour

extracting the stones from the query. It is further observed by the SDO

that no boundaries were verified pointing out the fact that how much

area is being extracted. He was not even sure of the fact that how old

was the extraction and what is the distance of the extracted area from

the lease of Smt. Rachna Sharma. It is argued that in such

circumstances the petitioner is having a good case. The Collector

should have condoned the delay and should have heard the matter on

merits. He submits that the application for limitation in filing the

appeal should be condoned and the matter be remitted back to the

Collector for decision on merits a fresh.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the contentions

and has argued that again and again the litigation is being filed by the

petitioner just to avoid deposition of fine amount. He fairly submits

that although the present scenario of COVID 19 pandemic is in

existence but he contends that the law regarding condonation of delay

to the effect that the counsel has not provided information is a old law

of the year 1980 and when there were no facilities of communication

like mobile etc. were available. But now-a-days the facilities are very

well available and the aforesaid law should not be applied in the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7231/2021 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

today's scenario. He prays that even if this Court arrives at a

conclusion that the matter be remanded back, then the petitioner be

directed to deposit at least 50% of the fine amount.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

From the perusal of the record it is seen that the petitioner is

continuously litigating since from the date the case was registered

against him. He has even challenged the order passed by the SDO

before the Commissioner and as per the petitioner interim relief was

initially granted to him. But subsequently owing to certain

amendments in MPLRC the appeal was held to be not maintainable

and liberty was extended to the petitioner to file the appeal before the

Collector. The appeal was filed before the Collector with a delay

along with an application for condonation of delay explaining the

circumstances that why the delay has occurred in filing the appeal.

The Collector has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of

limitation. From the perusal of the order of SDO it is revealed that in

the cross-examination there are certain admissions made by the

Revenue Inspector with respect to spot inspection. It appears to be an

arguable case and should be decided on merits. In such circumstances

although there is some delay on part of the petitioner but looking to

the present scenario of COVID 19 pandemic and also the fact that in

the limitation application the petitioner has categorically mentioned

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7231/2021 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

that he was not granted information by the counsel who was

appearing before the Commissioner, therefore, placing reliance upon

the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

M.K. Prasad vs. P.Armugam, reported in AIR 2001

SC 2497 and has argued that it is a settled law that for fault of

counsel, a party should not be made to suffer.

Further, the law is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Rafiq & Ors. vs. Munshilal and Anr., reported in

AIR 1981 SC 1400 wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as

under:-

"Where an appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of in absence of his counsel, so also his application for recall of order of dismissal was rejected by the High Court, the Supreme Court in appeal set aside both the orders of dismissal on ground that a party who, as per the present adversary legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid him fee can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such a innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of his counsel."

Considering the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court wherein, it is categorically held that for the fault of counsel, a

party should not be made to suffer and also considering the fact that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.665/2021 order

dated 27/4/2021 have directed to exclude the period of limitation

looking to the COVID 19 pandemic situation, this Court deems it

appropriate to allow this petition and set aside the order passed by the

Collector. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7231/2021 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. State of M.P.)

matter is remanded back to the Collector with a direction to be

decided on merits. However, for delay in filing the litigation by the

petitioner before this Court as well as before the Collector, this