MANALAL MANDOLI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by an appellant before the Board of Revenue whose appeal has been rejected as lime barred even after giving him all concessions in regard to certain delays. The position taken here is altogether different from that taken before the Board and we have to decide, firstly, whether in a petition under Article 227 or as for that matter under Article 226 itself, a ground can he canvassed that has not been even hinted at before the subordinate tribunal or authority. Secondly, whether for filing the appeal to the Bench of Revenue under the Cooperative societies Act from an award by an Assistant Registrar there is no court-fee payable. Thirdly, whether the Board in disposing of the earlier appeal by the petitioner should have given him time and kept that appeal alive and not returned it as it actually did. And finally, whether on the delayed payment of court fee the filing of the appeal will relate back to the date on which the earlier appeal bad been filed without court-fee.

(2.) THE arguments have been lengthy and elaborate but one need only Rive a short account of the course of events to show that the problem is extremely simple. The petitioner used to be the secretary in a co-operative society whose affairs were found on inspection by the Assistant Registrar to be in a bad state. In particular, the Assistant Registrar found that this petitioner was answerable for a sum of about 3000/- in round figures and made an award calling upon him to deposit that amount within a particular period. This being made on 10-1-64 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar Co-operative Societies on 29-2-1964. However this class of appeals, it has been provided, lie to the Government which in its own turn has delegated those powers to the Board of Revenue. The Registrar, therefore, returned the appeal pointing out these facts. This was on 4-4-1964.

(3.) ON 8-4-1964 the petitioner sent by post an appeal without court fee to the board of Revenue. There is nothing wrong in sending it by post which is permitted. However, when the Board found that there was no court-fee the actual fee prescribed being Rs. 5/- it immediately returned the memorandum by post pointing out the defect. The petitioner says that it reached him on 14-4-1964 but further asserts that he could not deal with it till the 20th April. Actually he went to the Board office eight days later on the 28th and presented an appeal, this time with the proper court-fee. The Board examined the matter, heard the party and found that the appeal was in any view of the matter time barred. It excluded the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting his appeal before the Registrar co-operative Societies: it also excluded the period taken in postal transit for the first memorandum to reach the petitioner. In fact it was even prepared to exclude the period upto the 20th though properly speaking on this ground time only upto the 14th might have been excluded. Having given all these concessions the Board still found that the appeal was late by eight days, the arithmetic of which is of course admitted by the petitioner. Before the Board the petitioner tried to get condonation of the delay by alleging that on the 20th he spoke of some lawyer about his intention to file the appeal and was told that the office of the Board was closed till the 28th. As can be expected the Board was not prepared to consider this as sufficient cause and accordingly dismissed the appeal as time barred.