CWP No. 22256 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22256 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 14, 2010 Surinder Kumar Garg ...... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Corporation and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed challenging the punishment order on the ground that even though major penalty was imposed yet procedure therefor was not followed. That is to say no regular inquiry was instituted. It is, however, not disputed that the punishment order was an appealable order. It is also not disputed that limitation for filing an appeal was 90 days. It is also not disputed that appeal was filed after three years. It is also not disputed before me that even in the petition no ground has been mentioned in support of the plea for condonation of delay. there is no substantial question of law. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner CWP No. 22256 of 2010 2 is that the limitation should not be allowed to erode the substantial right of a person. In my opinion this argument is too far fetched. Unless there exist grounds for condoning limitation the impugned order would have to be held to have been allowed to become final. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in RSA No. 3472 of 1985 decided on 16.02.2010, State of Punjab v. Shri Premjit and another. In that case the discussion precedes with the observation that the plea of limitation has not been pressed. In the circumstances any opinion would be obiter. Dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 14, 2010 sunita