MAHABIR PARSHAD GANERIWALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.09.1990 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3 - Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the case of the petitioner of surplus area has been reopened.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that order dated 07.09.1984 (Annexure P/1) was not challenged by the Government. At that time, the Prescribed Authority had considered the entire case and found that the transfer was legal and valid. Neither an appeal nor revision was filed, however, revision was filed by the State of Haryana before the Financial Commissioner under Section 18(6) of the Act after a lapse of four years praying for invoking his suo motu power to look into the legality of the order after calling the record from the Collector. Financial Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, set aside the order dated 07.09.1984 (Annexure P/1)and passed the order dated 11.9.1990 (Annexure P/2) holding that the order dated 07.09.1984 was vitiated by patent illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that Financial Commissioner should not have exercised the revisional power after lapse of more than 4 years from the date of order passed by the Prescribed Authority as the State never filed an appeal or revision against that order. So the impugned order (Annexure P/2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.