INDIAN PAN WORKS Vs. CHIEF COMMISIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case came up before as on 1st May, 1968 when we felt that it was a fit case in which we should consider the question, of exercising the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for scrutinising and, if necessary, of quashing the order of the Chief Commissioner dated 2nd August, 1962 rejecting the application for reference to the High Court made under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

(2.) On going through the record, which we bad sent for, we find that on 28th July 1962, an application was presented by the petitioner M/s. Indian Pan Works through Shri S. P. Saini, their counsel, in the office of the Chief Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, praying for reference to this High Court three questions of law formulated theirin. This application did not bear any court-fee stamp, out this deficiency notwithstanding, it was actually entertained by the office of the Chief Cmissioner. Alone; with the appllcation, was attached a Chilian showing deposit of Rs. 100.00. It appears that without giving any notice to the petitioner, Shri Bhagwan Sahya, the then Chief Commissioner, recorded on 2nd August, 1902 the following order underneath the typed office note stating the fact of the case:-

(3.) The facts just noticed clearly show that the office of the learned Chief Commissioner and the learned Chief Commissioner himself had both dealt with this matter in a manner which can by no means be considered to be either satisfactory or judical. As soon as the application was presented in the office of the Chief Commissioner, it was, in oar opinion, incumbent on the officer, entrusted with the duty of receiving it, to check up and satisfy himsely if the petition was complete in all respects, including affixation of proper court fee stamp and production or certified copy of the requisite order. In case it did not bear the court fee and was not accompained with a certified copy of the order, as ,uming such a copy and court-fee ware necessary, it should hive been declined to be entertained or received, and in the event of its having been entertained by oversight, returned to the applicant to be refiled after complying with the requirements of law. To entertain such an application without noticing and disclosing to the petitioner, the defects therein and to keep it on the record, discloses lack of due sense of responsibilty on the part of the officer concerned. We are assuming that he was aware of his duties and of the requirements of law for appropriately moving the learned Chief Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Bengai Finance Act in question.