Sri Tara Chand Barman vs Sri Priya Nath Barman and Others

K. Lahiri, J.—The Petitioner, a poor agriculturist, filed an application u/s 6(1) of the Assam Rural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1975, as amended, praying for discharge of his debts. The learned Sub-Deputy Collector rejected, the application by his order dated 7.7.77. As the Deputy Commissioner was not available, the Petitioner presented the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner u/s 10(3) of "the Act" and the Rules framed there under. It is indubitable that the Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority. It is also not questioned that on that date the Deputy Commissioner was away and the Additional Deputy Commissioner was holding the office. Ultimately, the matter was dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner on and from 30.11.77 though the appeal was presented before the Additional; Deputy Commissioner for the reasons alluded. As such, the presentation of the appeal was due presentation to the learned Deputy Commissioner though addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, The Deputy Commissioner took cognizance but peremptorily dismissed the appeal merely because it had been filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner.

We make it very clear that "the Act" in question is meant to give relief to the poorest class of persons. It is a piece of social legislation. The relief should be made readily available to the deserving .persons. In our considered opinion, the appeal though presented before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was meant for the Deputy Commissioner, In any view of the matter it is a bonafide mistake and the appeal was in proper form and presented within the period of limitation, In our opinion, the learned Deputy Commissioner has committed a grave error of jurisdiction in not entertaining the appeal and disposing it in accordance with law. The appeal was presented before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, but in fact the learned Deputy Commissioner took cognizance and he was bound to hear and dispose it in accordance with law. It is not the case of the Deputy Commissioner that the appeal was presented before him beyond the period of limitation. As such, he was obliged to hear and dispose of the appeal. We hold that the appeal was within time in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The order dated 10.11.78 is an order without jurisdiction which we hereby quash and (SIC) the matter back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, for disposal according to law within a month from, the date of receipt of the records. In the result, the petition is, allowed. However, we make no order as to costs.

In presence of the learned Counsel for the Parties we fix 21st December, 1981 as the date for appearance of the parties before the learned Deputy Commissioner c take necessary order from him.

Send down the records forthwith.