Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:8162
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2402 of 2023
Vikas Panwar --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. M.S. Bisht,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
Nos.1, 2 & 4.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the
Lokpal Appellate Authority in Complaint No.01 of 2023
Vikas Panwar Vs. Smt. Mitlesh (Annexure No.1).
3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary
details are that the petitioner has moved a complaint in
CM Portal regarding embezzlement of the fund of the
village Akodha Kalan, Laksar, District Haridwar. The
said complaint was referred by the CM Portal to the
Lokpal MGNREGA, Haridwar. Lokpal MGNREGA,
Haridwar has disposed of the said complaint made by
the petitioner saying that no basis is found in the
complaint on inquiry and the accusation made by the
petitioner was found baseless on examination of the
record, vide its order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure No.3).
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said
order filed an Appeal to the Appellate Forum-Lokpal
Appellate Authority on 21.09.2022 along with an
application for condoning the delay in filing the said
appeal. As per the provisions of Guidelines of
Ombudsperson and Appellate Authority (unamended), the
person aggrieved from the order of Lokpal MGNREGA may
file an appeal to Lokpal Appellate Authority within 15
2024:UHC:8162
days. According to the petitioner, order dated 30.09.2021
has come to the knowledge of the petitioner on
07.09.2022. According to the petitioner, due to the Covid-
19, dates were not being given in the matters pending
with the Lokpal MGNREGA, therefore, after getting the
knowledge of order dated 30.09.2021 on 07.09.2022, the
petitioner immediately filed an Appeal within time, before
the Lokpal Appellate Authority on 21.09.2022. The said
appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Lokpal
Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.07.2023 treating
the appeal as time barred.
5. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order passed
by the Lokpal Appellate Authority, petitioner is before this
Court.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Appeal was filed within time, if the
time is taken from the date of knowledge of impugned
order dated 30.09.2021 i.e. on 07.09.2022. It is further
contended by him that that due to onset of Covid-19, no
dates were given in the Lokpal MGNREGA, and when the
petitioner came to the knowledge of the impugned order
dated 30.09.2021 on 07.09.2022, the Appeal was filed on
21.09.2022, therefore the Appeal was filed well within the
prescribed period of 15 days.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Lokpal Appellate Authority has not
considered this aspect of the matter in right perspective
and dismissed the appeal on 07.07.2023 on the one hand
treating it time barred and on the other hand touching
the merits of the case as well.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied
upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
suo moto writ petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in re: cognizance
2024:UHC:8162
for extension of limitation and submitted that a period of
limitation was extended by Hon'ble Apex Court and lastly
90 days has been extended by the Court w.e.f.
01.03.2022 and therefore, the sympathetic view should
be adopted by this Court while treating the delay in filing
the Appeal.
9. Per contra, learned State Counsel has refuted
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner saying that the copy of the order dated
30.09.2021 was sent to the petitioner through a letter by
the Lokpal MGNREGA on 22.09.2021 in his address and
therefore, he was well aware of the order dated
30.09.2021.
10. Having considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the record meticulously and carefully, this Court finds
that even after taking the order passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in consideration, the Appeal of the petitioner is still
barred by limitation but not by 11 month, but by 115
days only and the matter of the petitioner can be
sympathetically looked into by the Lokpal Appellate
Authority. It appears that the delay in filing the Appeal
occasioned due to Covid-19.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2023 passed by
passed by the Lokpal Appellate Authority in Complaint
No.01 of 2023 Vikas Panwar Vs. Smt. Mitlesh (Annexure
No.1), is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back
to the Lokpal Appellate Authority, Haridwar to consider
the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations
made by this Court in this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.11.2024
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c164
NEGI
32f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F
9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2024.11.07 14:37:51 +05'30'
