AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. C. Jain and I. S. Tiwana, JJ.
The only point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Joint Secretary (Cooperation) Haryana, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without adverting to the explanation given in the Grounds of Appeal, for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. According to the learned counsel, the Joint Secretary has factually erred in observing that no explanation for the delay was given. Reference in support of this contention was made to para 6 of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein explanation for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation has been given. The said para reads as under :
"That under mistaken view the appellantsociety filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rohtak, vide registered A.D. letter No. 1314 dated 9.9.1980 and the later vide his letter dated 23.9.1980 (received in appellant Society''s office on 25.9.80), Annexure P/2 advised the appellantSociety to file appeal before competent authority. Thereafter, after issuance of required notice, meeting of Managing Committee was held on 8.10.80 and copy of resolution passed on that day authorising the Manager to file appeal before this Court is attached as Annexure P/3. Again a copy of award was applied for on 7.10.80 and copy obtained on 15.10.80 which is annexure P1. In view of these circumstances, it is prayed that the delay, whatever, be condoned."
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A bare perusal of the impugned order, Annexure P4, goes to show that the Joint Secretary did not advert at all to the aforesaid ground taken in the Grounds of Appeal, wherein a detailed explanation has been given for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained. The explanation regarding the filing of the appeal beyond the period of limitation is quite convincing and if the Joint Secretary had just cared to advert to that explanation, then the appeal would not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the contestingrespondent, brought to our notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 315 of 1978, Zile Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 2nd August, 1979, but after going through that judgment we find that the same is distinguishable and has been rendered on the peculiar facts of that case. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this petition, set aside the order of the Joint Secretary (Cooperation) Haryana, dated 16th December, 1980, Annexure P4, and send back the case to him for deciding it afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, who have been directed to appear before him on 8th June, 1981.