STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for condoning delay as well as main appeal are for disposal. We have heard Counsel for the parties. Taking up application for condoning delay, it may be observed that since, we are of the opinion that the District Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the final order passed, which is impugned in this appeal is without jurisdiction and void, the de\ay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned on that ground alone.

(2.) Although the allegations made in the application are vague and general, it is considered appropriate to observe about the casual manner in which the entire case as a whole in the Administrative Deptt, and particularly conduct of the case before District Forum and filing of the appeal by officers and officials of New Mandi Township Punjab, Chandigarh deserves to be commented upon. At this stage, suffice it to say that certified copy of the order was made available to the appellant on May 7, 1997 and appeal was filed on June 23, 1997. In para 5 thereof, it is stated that the concerned officer was on medical leave due to operation of his ear and he remained on medical leave up to June 16, 1997. Affidavit of Shri J. C. Sabherwal, PCS, Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab was filed in support of the allegations made in the application. In para 6 thereof, again the contents of para 5 of the application were reiterated that the concerned officer was on medical leave, therefore, the requisite affidavit could not be filed. Factually, this affidavit does not appear to be signed by J. C. Sabherwal, PCS, Administrator but by somebody else and got attested. Thus, who was the officer whose affidavit was supposed to be filed and who was the officer whose ear was operated upon and remained on medical leave, is left to be guessed. Since no reply was filed to the application, it is taken that the person competent to decide about filing of the appeal was on medical leave, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(3.) Before the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint is taken up, it deserves to be noticed that in spite of three opportunities having been afforded by the District Forum after filing of the replication by the complainant, none of the parties chose to produce evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. It was expected of the State of Punjab who was represented through Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab to support their case as taken up in the version submitted in response to the complaint in the form of affidavit of a person conversant with the facts of the case as well as copies of the documents from the official file. At this stage, such disputed facts can only be summarised on which State was expected to file reply and produce evidence : (i) Confirmation of the bid or cancellation thereof; (ii) Receipt of Bank Draft by the Board towards balance amount of the auction money amounting to Rs.11,250/- and encashment thereof, if any; (iii) How possession was taken by the complainant and how he was allowed to raise construction without knowledge of the Board for years together; (iv) As to why no action was taken by the Board to object to the raising of construction by the complainant and to take steps to recover possession of the Government land for years together.