BHARAT SINGH Vs. B S GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for impugning an order dated May 21, 1964, of the Financial Commissioner. It arises out of these facts :

(2.) It appears to me that this petition must be allowed on the short ground that no opportunity worth the name was afforded by the Financial Commissioner to the petitioner to be heard in support of his revision-petition. The office record of the Financial Commissioner has now been produced for my inspection. It is clear from its perusal that the telegram issued as a notice of the date of hearing, was never received by the petitioner. The report of the Process-Server, Devi Karan is to the effect 'that the petitioner was not found, at Rohtak and that it was learnt that he was residing at Bhiwani, where he had taken land on lease for cultivation'. This report of the Process-Server is also dated 21.5.1964. That is to say, the Process-Server made an attempt to serve this notice on the petitioner on the very day on which the case was fixed for hearing.

(3.) Mr. S. P. Jain, learned counsel for Respondent 2, however, contends that it was the duty of the petitioner to have notified the change in his address and that since the wrong address, originally furnished by him, was the cause of the non-service of the notice, the petitioner was to thank none but himself. Further, it is argued that under the law, it was not necessary to issue any notice of the date of hearing whatever, to the petitioner, because the Financial Commissioner could dismiss the revision-petition in limine even without issuing notice to the parties.