ESTATE OFFICER URBAN ESTATES Vs. MADHU JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, two applications filed in two appeals (No.119 of 1996 and 120 of 1996) are being disposed of as the facts given in the applications are common. Both the appeals have been filed against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated February 7,1996. As per facts narrated in para No.2 of the application, copy of the impugned order was received in the office of the appellant-PUDA on February 20,1996. The appeals could be filed on or before March 19,1996. During this period, as per assertion made in the application, the matter was examined in the office of the appellant at Ludhiana and then by the Head office for granting necessary sanction for filing appeal and engaging counsel. There was also a spell of long holidays in the office at Ludhiana as well as at Chandigarh, during the months of February and March, 1996. The papers for filing appeal were handed over to the Counsel on March 26, 1996 and hence appeal was filed. The applications are dated April 18,1996 but actually the appeals were filed on April 23, 1996.

(2.) Notice of the application (s) was given to respondents who have filed replies controverting the allegations and contesting the same. In support of the averments, affidavit of Shri Jasbir Singh Heer, PCS Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Ludhiana was filed which is verbatim the replica of the contents of the application.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that there is no denial in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent about the long spell of holidays observed by the PUDA, and thus the ground taken up in the application should be treated to have been substantiated. There is falsity in the argument. The appellant has to stand on his own feet and specifically aver and prove-period for which he was prevented from filing the appeal. Moreover, making an averment of long spell of holidays in the office of the PUDA in the months of February and March will not suffice. The appellants is vague to be acted upon. The matter does not end there. Even on the date the papers were handed over to the Counsel for the appellant for filing appeal the limitation had expired and the time taken by the Advocate for preparation of the appeal could not be excluded although there is no explanation in the application for undue delay from March 26, 1996 to April 23, 1996. This is a clear case of callousness on the part of the officials of PUDA delaing with the matter in explaining delay in filing the appeal. While dismissing the applications as no sufficient cause has been shown, appeals are also dismissed as barred by time. It is left to PUDA to hold departmental action against official concerned for not promptly taking action in the matter if considered necessary.