IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6853 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.10.2008 Sunil Kapoor vs. State of Haryana & ors. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh. Present: Mr. V.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for HUDA. **** Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The petitioner, primarily challenges an order dated 15th February, 2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, dismissing his application for restoration of the revision which was dismissed in default on 8.03.2004. In addition, however, challenge has also been made to the order of resumption dated 25th June, 2000 and the order passed by the appellate authority 12th September, 2003. The petitioner was allotted a plot/building No.32 in Sector 31- 32 A, Gurgaon, for a sale consideration of 19,75000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.1,97,500/- at the time of the bid and thereafter Rs.2,96,250/- on 3rd April, 1995. The petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.11,50,162/- but on account of certain family circumstances was unable to pay balance instalments. On 25th June, 2002 the respondents directed resumption of his CWP No.6853 of 2007 -2- plot. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator on 12th September, 2003. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department. The petitioner was informed that the date of hearing would be communicated. However, as no such date was communicated, the petitioner made inquiries and was shocked to learn that the revision petition had been dismissed in default on 8th March, 2004. The petitioner immediately filed an application for recalling of this order. The application was dismissed on 15th February, 2007, as it was held that a notice was issued on 28th January, 2004 informing the petitioner that the revision would be heard on 8th March, 2004, and therefore, there was no ground to recall the order dated 8th March, 2004. As a result, the application for restoration was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not informed of the date fixed in the revision petition and could, therefore, not appear on 8th March, 2004. It is submitted that the revision was dismissed in default on the first date, on a presumption that the letter, must have been received, as it was not received back in the office. It is argued that the letter was never received by the petitioner and even otherwise, there was no reason for the petitioner to remain absent. The petitioner stands to lose valuable property in case his revision is not decided on merits. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dismissing the application for restoration be set aside and respondent No.1 be directed to hear the revision on merits. Counsel for HUDA vehemently opposes the above submissions by asserting that the petitioner was informed of the date fixed. The application for restoration does not contain any averment, sufficient to recall CWP No.6853 of 2007 -3- the order dismissing the revision in default. The revisional authority, therefore, rightly declined the application for restoration. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order (Annexure P/11). The office of the revisional authority sent a letter dated 28th January, 2004 informing the petitioner that his revision petition would be heard on 8th March, 2004. As the petitioner did not appear before the revisional authority on 8th March, 2004, the revision petition was dismissed. Admittedly, the general practice is that dates of hearing are intimated by post. The revisional authority sent a letter dated 28th January, 2004 informing the petitioner that his revision would be taken for hearing on 8th March, 2004. The petitioner asserts that he did not receive the letter and therefore, could not appear before the revisional authority on 8th March, 2004. The question that requires adjudication is whether the petitioner's absence was wilful, mala fide or a bona fide error on his part. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the considered opinion that the revisional authority should have accepted the application for restoration, recalled the order dated 8th March, 2004 and decided the revision petition on merits. Courts and quasi judicial tribunals generally lean towards a judicial adjudication of disputes as opposed to their dismissal on technicalities, except where the conduct discloses mala fide negligence. In the present case, though the petitioner may have been negligent in his duty to keep a track of the date of hearing, no mala fides or culpable negligence has been alleged or attributed to him. The petitioner had nothing to gain but everything to lose by remaining absent. As a result, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice lies in setting CWP No.6853 of 2007 -4- aside the order dated 15th February, 2007 and the order dated 8th March, 2004 and directing respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's revision on merits subject, however, to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs. In view of what has been stated hereinabove the writ petition is allowed, order dated 15th February, 2007 and 8th March, 2004, are set aside and the revision is restored to the Financial Commissioner-cum Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Secretary to Government of Haryana on 18.11.2008. (Rajive Bhalla) Judge 16.10.2008 (Jora Singh) sk Judge