SAUDAGAR RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saudagar Ram, resident of village Dhaban Kokarian, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 7-7-1962 of Shri Saroop Krishan, Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

(2.) The petitioner had filed a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner of Jullundur Division. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned Financial Commissioner that the petition was time-barred having been filed with a delay of eight days after allowing the time taken in obtaining a copy of the order of the Commissioner sought to be revised. This objection was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed by holding that there was unexplained delay in filing the same.

(3.) Mr. Roop Chand, who appears for the petitioner, has argued that no time limit is fixed for filing a revision petition in the Court of the Financial Commissioner. He further argued that there was no delay in the present case in filing the revision petition. Alongwith the revision petition the petitioner filed certified copies of the orders of the Commissioner, the Collector and the Assistant Collector. The time spent in obtaining those copies was eight days, nine days and fourteen days respectively. According to him, if the time spent in obtaining all these copies is excluded, then the revision petition was filed much earlier than ninety days which is generally taken to be period during which the revision petition should be filed. There is no return on behalf of either the Financial Commissioner or the private respondent Rulia Ram. The facts stated in the petition which are supported by an affidavit will, therefore, be taken to be correct. On these facts, there is no doubt that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. There is no warrant for the proposition that the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Commissioner only should be excluded. Generally, the copies of all the orders of the lower Courts are filed alongwith the revision petition and the time spent in obtaining all those copies should be excluded. This view has been taken by Shri B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab in Rajdev Singh etc. v. Jagta,1963 CurLJ(Civ&Cri) 124. He has held that as it is customary in revision to expect copies of all the orders of lower Courts, it is only fair that the time spent in obtaining them should be excluded from computation.