IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.66 of 2011 Reserved on: 25.5.2011 Date of decision: 13.6.2011 Nanak Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner as being time barred. 2 The undisputed facts of the case are that on 24.11.2001 in case titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Nanak Chand, the Gram Panchayat, Nandan, District Hamirpur imposed a fine of Rs.5.25/- on the petitioner alongwith recurring penalty of Rs.1/- per day under Section 12 of the H.P Panchayati Raj Act. An appeal against the said order was filed on 30.12.2006. According to the petitioner, he was present in the Panchayat on 24.11.2001 but was informed that since he had not caused any nuisance to Mohinder Singh, the proceedings were being dropped. The plea of the petitioner is that he came to know about the impugned order only on 24.11.2006 when he received a notice from the Gram Panchayat for the recovery of fine. Thereafter, he went to the office of the Panchayat and applied for the copy of the impugned order which was supplied to him 3 on 28.12.2006 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 30.12.2006. The learned Appellate Authority found that the appeal is hopelessly time barred. The record showed that the respondent-appellant Mohinder Singh was present before the Gram Panchayat on the date when the order was passed. Therefore, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that a story has been cooked up to show that in fact the appellant was not present on the said date. I have heard Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Romesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can only correct errors of jurisdiction and cannot start appreciating the evidence afresh. The court below, on the basis of material placed before it, came to the 4 conclusion that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Even the petitioner does not dispute that he was present before the Panchayat on 24.11.2001. His story that he was told that no case is made out against him appears to be false and the order passed by the Panchayat makes it clear that it was found that the petitioner had caused nuisance and, therefore, fine and recurring penalty was imposed upon him. I find no jurisdictional error in the order of the learned Appellate Authority. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. June 13, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge