C.R.No.3791 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C.R.No.3791 of 2005 Date of Decision : September 26, 2006. Prem Singh ..... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & another ..... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Patwalia * * * Present : Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.C.Gupta, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. * * * P.S.Patwalia, J. (Oral) : The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Collector, District Faridkot exercising the powers of the Commissioner, District Faridkot. By the said order delay of more than three years in filing the appeal under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Reovery) Act, 1973 has been condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while noticing the facts though it has been noticed that the appeal could not be filed due to C.R.No.3791 of 2005 2 rush of work and transfer of the incumbent holding the office of Tehsildar, however ultimately the delay has been condoned with the following observations :- “After hearing the counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that although there is much delay in filing the appeal by the appellant but if this appeal is not decided on merits, the injustice would be caused to the appellant. Therefore, the application of the appellant for condonation of delay is accepted. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” Learned counsel submits that absolutely no reasons have been assigned as to why the explanation given by the State was accepted and defence cited by petitioner was not found to be worthy of acceptance. No finding has also been recorded as to whether the explanation provided a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order should be set aside. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submits that the delay had occurred due to rush of work and transfer of incumbent on the post of Tehsildar at Jaitu. He states that this fact has been noted in the impugned order. He however submits that in case the court comes to the conclusion but the order does not accord any reason for accepting the case set up by the State then the matter can be remanded back for fresh decision of the application for condonation of delay. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the delay of more than three years has been condoned by the Collector, C.R.No.3791 of 2005 3 District Faridkot without assigning any reason for accepting the plea set up by the State and for rejecting the defence set up by the petitioner. It has also not been found that the explanation offered provided a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly I am of the opinion that the order dated 13.7.2005 condoning the delay cannot be sustained on the aforementioned ground alone. Accordingly the order is set aside. The matter is however remanded back to the Collector, District Faridkot exercising the powers of Commissioner, District Faridkot for considering afresh the application for condonation of delay filed by the State Government along with the appeal and decide the same after passing a reasoned speaking order. The revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. September 26, 2006 ( P.S.Patwalia ) monika Judge