DARSHAN LAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.05.2009 (Annexure P-2) as well as subsequent order dated 02.06.2009 passed on application dated 02.06.2009 by District Collector, Ludhiana (respondent No. 1) while acting as appellate authority under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order, Annexure P-1 dated 20.02.2008 was passed by the House Tax Sub Committee of Nagar Panchayat Sahnewal, District Ludhiana enhancing the house tax from Rs. 385/- per year to Rs. 22,550/- per year on the property situated in village Nandpur Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. An appeal against the said order was preferred before the appellate authority. The order assessing the house tax was passed on 20.02.2008 but the appeal was filed on 11.06.2008. According to Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner an application was moved for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the same was filed beyond limitation. While the evidence was being recorded in the said application, the case was listed for hearing on 29.05.2009. On the said date, the petitioner remained un-represented before the appellate authority as wrong date i.e. 02.06.2009 was noted by the appellant/petitioner. The appeal was thus dismissed in default. An application was moved later for recalling the order dated 29.05.2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed in default due to non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. On the said application, an order passed on 02.06.2009. The same reads thus: "I do not find this reason tenable. Hence, it is rejected." Learned counsel submits that above order is absolutely unsustainable in law as non appearance of the petitioner or his counsel before the appellate authority on 29.05.2009 was totally unintentional as a wrong date was noted by counsel for the petitioner and petitioner cannot be made to suffer for fault of his counsel. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 & 3 has, however, opposed the prayer made in the petition and submitted that the petitioner was only adopting dilatory tactics and did not appear before the trial court on 29.05.2009 deliberately. I have heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is evident that on 29.05.2009, neither the petitioner was present before the appellate authority nor his counsel appeared. The case was thus, dismissed due to non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. An application for restoration was moved on 02.06.2009 which was dismissed by one line order on the same day. The reasons given in the application for non- appearance on 29.05.2009 were not adverted to by the appellate authority. In the said application, the petitioner had submitted that non-appearance before the appellate authority on 29.05.2009 was neither willful nor intentional. In fact, it was due to a clerical mistake that the petitioner had noted a wrong date of hearing.

(3.) Without expressing any opinion or adverting to the reasons given in the application, the appellate authority dismissed the same by a non-speaking order. In my considered view the order passed by appellate authority is unsustainable. In view of the fact that appeal was dismissed in default on 29.05.2009 and the application for restoration was moved shortly thereafter i.e. on 2.06.2009, in my considered view the same should have been allowed by the appellate authority.