AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present petitioner had filed Appeal No. 1737/99 before the first
respondent. The petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay in presentation of such appeal and by the impugned order dated
14.3.2001 such application for condonation of delay has been rejected. It was the stand of the petitioner that the order which was challenged in
the appeal had not been served on the petitioner and subsequently on receipt of intimation relating to recovery of the amount, the appeal was filed
alongwith the petition for condonation of delay. The department relied on the despatch register to show that copy had been served. However,
when the petitioner had taken a specific stand that copy had not been served, it was the duty of the department to produce material in support of
the assertion that in fact copy had been served or the petitioner had received the copy, It cannot be said that the petitioner was likely to gain any
undue advantage by deliberately delaying the filing of appeal. Law is well settled that question of condonation of delay should be considered
elaborately with a view to render substantial justice.
Having regard to all these aspects, I feel interest of justice would be served by quashing the impugned order dated 14.3.2001 and by directing
the first respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.