GURDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point in this writ petition is whether the learned Financial Commissioner had correctly dismissed the revision filed before him by the petitioners on the ground that it was belated and no case had been made out for condoning the delay.

(2.) Gurdial Singh, petitioner No. 1, had instituted two appeals before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division. They were Nos. 719 and 720 of 1960-61. The former was "Gurdial Singh v. Punjab State and S. Sant Parkash Singh and others" and the heading of the latter was "Gurdial Singh v. Punjab State, Gurbachan Singh and others". Both of them were disposed of by the Commissioner on 30th May, 1961. The first was rejected and the second accepted.

(3.) On 15th July, 1961, Gurdial Singh made an application for getting a certified copy of the order dated 30th May, 1961, in appeal No. 719 of 1960-61, which had been rejected by the learned Commissioner. But, unfortunately, he neither mentioned the number of the appeal nor the names of the respondents except that of the Punjab State. He had, however, stated in that application that a copy of the order, by which the Commissioner had rejected the appeal, was required.. The Copying Department delivered the copy of the order made by the Commissioner in appeal No. 720 of 1960-61 on 29th July, 1961. When Gurdial Singh found that a wrong copy had been supplied to him, he is said to have made another application on I7th August, 1961, in which he mentioned that he required the copy in the other appeal in which one of the respondents was S. Sant Parkash Singh. That copy was then prepared by the Copying Department and delivered to petitioner on 7th September, 1961. He then filed the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner on 22nd September, 1961. The learned Financial Commissioner rejected the same by means of the impugned order dated 20th December, 1965, observing-"It is correct that there is no statutory limit for filing the revision petition, but it is the recognised practice that revision petitions are not normally entertained after a period of 90 days. Delay could no doubt be condoned, but only if there is sufficient reason for doing so. The present revision does not disclose any such reason and no ground has been made out for the delay being overlooked'. The learned Financial Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to a period of only 19 days for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Commissioner and according to that calculation, the revision petition was barred by six days. The method of his calculation was that the first application was made by the petitioner on 15th July, 1961, and the wrong copy was ready on 26th July, 1961, though it had been delivered to the petitioner on 29th July, 1961, and, therefore, 12 days were spent in obtaining it. The second application was made on 17th August, 1961, and that copy was ready on 23rd August, 1961, although it was taken delivery of on 7th September, 1961. Thus, only seven days were spent in getting the second copy. Consequently, 19 days in all were spent in obtaining these two copies.