STATE Vs. MANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated November 3, 1972 where by the writ petitions were allowed and the demands raised by the Excise Department against the respondents were directed not to be realised from the respondents. It was further ordered that the amount of security confiscated by the Department for the nonpayment of the demand raised by the Department to pay the Excise duty on the unsold liquor may be returned to the petitioner -respondent. The learned Judge allowed the writ petitions in view of the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1596/69 Bal Mukund v. State of Rajasthan, dated July 27, 1971.

(2.) IT may be stated here on merits, the order of the learned Single Judge is sustainable in view of the fact that the division Bench of this Court has reversed the aforesaid S.B. decision and the Division Bench decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pannalal v. State of Rajasthan reported in : [1976]1SCR219 .

(3.) IT may be stated that by one order, 20 writ petitions were disposed of on November 3, 1972. Out of these 20 writ petitions, appeals were filed in three writ petitions after considerable delay and those appeals have been dismissed on the ground that they are barred by limitation. These are 13 appeals and it is not known as to whether four appeals have been filed in the remaining four writ petitions or not. So far as the present 13 appeals are concerned, it is noteworthy that application for obtaining certified copy in all these writ petitions was submitted on 11 -1 -1973, much after the expiry of the period of limitation. The limitation had expired on December 3, 1972. Within the period of limitation application for obtaining certified copy of the order was not. filed. It is to be seen as to how the application for obtaining certified copy was not filed and for that we have looked into the affidavits of Shri M.K. Dave and Shri B.L. Vasishta. Shri M.K. Dave in his affidavit has stated that after the decision in Balmukand's case more writ petitions were filed and they were about 400 approximately. The cases used to be listed in small bunches and sanction of the Law Department was also received in bunches, that is, composite sanction for several cases, and he used to keep all such cases, in one file. The Court used to dispose of the cases in bunches by the same or similar order in view of the judgment in Balmukand's case. He has further averred in his affidavit that sometimes there used to be one file for many cases listed in the Court to lesser his office burden and also there were hundreds of cases. So in these circumstances, a separate file of each case in these appeals could not be maintained and as such Shri M.D. Purohit, Dy. Government Advocate could not write the order sheet on 31 -11 -1972. Consequently he could not know the date of judgment and the date of judgment escaped his notice. It is only when the Officer Incharge came to Jodhpur and enquired about the progress, he came to know that the case has been decided on November 3, 1972. He took the steps to find out the date when the Officer Incharge made enquiry and thereafter applications for certified copies were submitted on 11 -1 -1973. It may be mentioned that in support of the affidavit, no record has been filed to substantiate what has been sworn by Shri Dave. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that 20 cases appeared in the daily cause list when they were disposed of. It is not the case of the parties that the cases were not listed in the daily cause list. When cases were listed in the daily cause list and were disposed of, the date of disposal must have been noted and must have been communicated to the office with instructions to apply for certified copy and the concerned department too should have been informed regarding the judgment in the cases, so that further steps can be taken by the Department. Even if it be taken that a separate file of each case has not been maintained by Shri Dave, still when the cases have appeared in the daily cause list, it was his duty to have taken note of as to what has transpired to those cases listed in the cause list.