IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19345 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.10.2011 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malerkotla. He moved an application that the mutation proceedings should be stayed in view of the fact that he is having a property dispute with the private respondents. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade noticed from the facts of the case that the petitioner had earlier moved a similar application on 31.8.2009 which was rejected vide order dated 8.9.2009 and this order was tested in revision before the Collector and the Commissioner who upheld the same. The petitioner thereafter approached the Court of Financial Commissioner before whom the proceedings are still pending. The application moved by the petitioner for stay of mutation proceedings was thus declined on the ground that C.W.P.No.19345 of 2011 -2- similar application had already been decided and a fresh application on similarity of facts and prayer could not be accepted. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity committed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade while declining the prayer of the petitioner, as once an application which is similar on facts and prayer has been declined and tested by the higher authorities, the same could not be filed afresh. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the proceedings pending before him on the next date of hearing, i.e. 2.11.2011. I have considered this prayer of the petitioner as well. There is no material to suggest that whether any undue delay has been caused before the competent authority. There being no suggestive material, the Court cannot enter upon a presumption that an unwarranted delay is being caused by the competent authority in disposing of the matter. It is quite possible that the petitioner himself may have sought adjournments thus contributing to the delay in the decision process. Be that as it may, there is no reason to bind the Financial Commissioner with any direction at this stage as it is always expected from the authorities which are seized of the matters that they will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without causing any unwarranted delay and keeping in view the urgency dictated by the facts of the cases. 17.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss