URMILA DEVI TIWRI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appeal filed against the order of the Collector has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Sagar vide order dtd. 9/4/2013 on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed the memo of appeal along with an application for condonation of delay (Annexure-P/5). It is submitted that in the application filed for condonation of delay, it has been stated that as the appellant is a lady, she was not aware of the impugned order and she came to know about the fact of dismissal of the appeal from her husband and immediately thereafter, she applied for the certified copy of the order which she obtained on 21/3/2012 and immediately on 22/3/2012, she had preferred the appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in filing the appeal is near about four months which was bonafide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

(3.) From perusal of the impugned order, it is found by this Court that the order is a non-speaking order and by a single line, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the application stating that the grounds are not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is a trite law that a litigant should not be deprived of their litigating rights only on the question of delay. Once the application has been filed along with the reasons supported by an affidavit, the authority ought to have dwelt upon the application objectively and passed the order.