IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.2432 of 1989 Date of decision: 21.9.2010 National Fertilizers Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. for respondents No.2 & 3. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 6.9.1988 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. 2. The petitioner is a public company owned by the Government of India having its plant at Bathinda for production of urea. It received certain goods on 6.6.1987 and dispute was as to the rate at which octroi duty was payable. The competent authority held that the goods fell under entry 73 of the Octroi Schedule notified vide notification dated 19.8.1983, as against the claim of the petitioner that the goods fell under entry 93. Appeal CWP No.2432 of 1989 of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner only on the ground of delay. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The finding in the impugned order is as under:- “4. I have seen the merits of the case and find that the appellant has no case. This is very clear from the record of the case that the appeal filed before the Administrator and Deputy Commissioner was time barred and there is no sufficient reasons for the condonation of delay which has not been explained with justification. Therefore, this appeal cannot be entertained being time barred and the same is dismissed.” 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order mainly on following grounds:- “iii) the appeal was filed in time. Its refiling in proper form under direction of the Appellate Authority must relate back to the original filing. iv) the Deputy Commissioner had directed the petitioner to file the appeal before him in proper form and then duly entertained the appeal and issued notice to the opposite party. Without any objection from the side of the petitioner, who could alone feel aggrieved from earlier expression of opinion quite out of place, the Deputy Commissioner arbitrarily turned it down.” 2 CWP No.2432 of 1989 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above points though raised were not given due consideration. Matter should have been decided on merits. The order against which appeal was filed is dated 9.7.1987. The appeal was filed on 14.9.1987. Though it was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days, the order dated 9.7.1987 was communicated only on 16.7.1987 and by mistake, the appeal was first filed before Deputy Commissioner who returned the same and in the process, delay took place which should have been treated to be sufficient cause in favour of the petitioner. 7. None appears for the Municipal Committee. Learned counsel for the State is unable to show how the impugned order could be sustained on facts mentioned above. 8. We are of the opinion that the matter should be considered by the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division on merits in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash the impugned order dated 6.9.1988 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and direct that fresh decision be taken on merits in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner may appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings on 30.12.2010. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 21, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3