RAM KANWAR Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR IST GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is not a happy reflection on the functioning of quasi-judicial authorities. The Financial Commissioner heard the arguments in this case on 21.8.2002 and reserved the order. The judgment was ultimately pronounced on 28.6.2007. Can such a judgment be sustained in the eyes of law is the question posed by the petitioners through the present writ petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for landlord-respondent No. 5 was rather emphatic in urging that Court should not interfere in this order as he is the sufferer of this delay and not the petitioners, who are tenants. The petitioners, as per the respondent-landlord, are neither paying rent nor are vacating the land, whereas they have an order staying dispossession in their favour since 16.8.2007. Counsel for respondent No. 5, thus, would urge, with some justification that respondent No. 5 suffered because of delay in delivery of the judgment and not the petitioners, who rather stand benefitted by delay in delivering the judgment. He would, thus, beseech this Court not to interfere in the impugned order whereby the order evicting the tenants has already been made. According to the counsel, interfering in the impugned order on the ground as urged would further prolong his right to get possession of his land and, thus, it would not be fair and just course having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) THIS order may call for interference, though the consequence of the same apparently would be rather harsh for respondent No. 5. Counsel for respondent No. 5 appears justified in saying that in fact he would suffer in case the impugned order is setaside on this technical ground of delay in deciding the case after having heard the arguments so many years ago. It appears that sufferer would be respondent No. 5 as he has an order of eviction of the petitioners, which he could have executed to obtain possession of his land. Merely because the consequences are a bit harsh, would not a valid reason not to examine the validity of the order as per the law.