Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandir Thakur Dawara Through ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 September, 2022
CWP-7669-2022 -1-
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-7669-2022
Date of Decision: 28.09.2022
Mandir Thakur Dawara
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate and
Mr. B.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Kang, Senior DAG, Punjab
for respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
*****
LISA GILL J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is aggrieved of impugned order dated 04.03.2022
(being endorsement dated 16.03.2022) (Annexure P-7), whereby Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat (exercising the powers of
Commissioner), Punjab (respondent No.2) has allowed the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by Gram Panchayat, Village
Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala (respondent No.3) seeking
condonation of delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing appeal under
Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by
passing a totally non-speaking order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that colossal delay
of 3 years and 10 months has been condoned by learned Commissioner vide
1 of 4
order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) merely by passing a single line
order without advertence to any of the pleas raised by petitioner opposing
the condonation of such delay.
Reply dated 25.04.2022 on behalf of respondent No.3 filed in
Court today is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of record reveals that Appeal No.270 of 2020 was filed
by Gram Panchayat, Village Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala
(respondent No.3) challenging order dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure P-3), in
which an application seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 10
months in filing the said appeal was also sought. The said delay was
condoned by learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 04.03.2022
(Annexure P-7) while passing the following order:-
"Delay is condoned. Case is adjourned for 08.04.2022
for arguments in the main case."
Perusal of impugned order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-7),
reveals that the Appellate Authority has failed to discharge the obligation
placed as the impugned order is totally non-speaking and cryptic. It is well
settled that a quasi-judicial authority is bound to pass a well reasoned order.
A non-speaking order deprives an affected party of an effective opportunity
to represent against the same. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of
justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs.
State U.P. and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1302", held as under:-
" 7. Opportunity to a party interested in the dispute to
present his case on questions of law as well as fact,
ascertainment of facts from materials before the
Tribunal after disclosing the materials to the party
against whom it is intended to use them, and
2 of 4
adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon a finding of
the facts in controversy and application of the law to
the facts found, are attributes of even a quasi-judicial
determination. It must appear not merely that the
authority entrusted with quasi-judicial authority has
reached a conclusion on the problem before him : it
must appear that he has reached a conclusion which is
according to law and just, and for ensuring that end he
must record the ultimate mental process leading from
the dispute to its solution. Satisfactory decision of a
disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported
by the most cogent reasons that appeal to the authority.
Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a
disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures
that the decision is reached according to law and is not
the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on
grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute
is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the
authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject
to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for
without recorded reasons the appellate authority has
no material on which it may determine whether the
facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was
correctly applied and the decision was just."
Though learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that there
are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay, therefore, impugned order
dated 04.03.2022 has been correctly passed, he is unable to deny that it was
indeed imperative that opportunity of hearing should have been provided to
the petitioner and pleas raised by him opposing the condonation of such
delay should have been considered before condoning delay in filing of the
said appeal. Admittedly the petitioner has a direct and substantial interest in
the matter and it is imperative for the Appellate Authority to record the
3 of 4
specific reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Admittedly in
the present case, the impugned order is totally non-speaking, sketchy and
cryptic with not even a whisper of any reasoning leave alone considered
reasoning indicating the basis of the decision.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure P-7)
is set aside and the matter is remanded to learned Commissioner, Rural
Development and Panchayat, Vikas Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS Nagar to pass
a well reasoned and considered order on the application seeking
condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 11 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 in accordance with law, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the
merits of the matter.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
28.09.2022 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
