IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3456 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.03.2009 HMT Limited ..Petitioner versus Haryana State Pollution Control Board and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. R.K.Chibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Chibbar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion to the respondents. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent of the parties, this petition has been heard for final disposal. The only question that falls for consideration before us in the present writ petition is whether the Appellate Authority was justified in declining condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal by the petitioner against an order of assessment, a copy whereof has been produced as Annexure P-11 to the petition. It is common ground that the order of assessment is appealable under Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978. The period of limitation prescribed for any such appeal in terms of Rule 9(3) of the said Rules is 30 days from the date of communication of the order to the party concerned. The CWP No. 3456 of 2009 [2] proviso to Rule 9(3), however, empowers the Appellate Committee to condone the delay in filing of the appeal provided it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. Petitioner appears to have made an application for condonation of delay in terms of the said proviso which has been dismissed by the Appellate Committee resulting in dismissal of the appeal as time barred. The present writ petition as already noticed calls in question the correctness of the said order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the petitioner had made out a case for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. In fairness to Mr. Walia, we must mention that even he has not seriously opposed the idea of the appeal being heard and disposed off on merits instead of being dismissed as time barred. We say so, especially when the petitioner's entire case before the Appellate Authority was that it had been assured by the officers of the Pollution Control Board that in case a revised return is filed correcting the error in the earlier return, the matter shall be looked into and a revised assessment order made. The revised return was advised by these officers with a view to correcting, what was according to the petitioner an apparent clerical error in the return earlier filed by it. Be that as it may, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, do not in our opinion, justify decline of an order of condonation in favour of the petitioner. We accordingly allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing of the appeal and direct the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously but not later than six months from the date, a copy of the order is received. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) 04.03.2009 JUDGE 'ravinder'