_____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.10 of 2007. Dated of Decision: July 29, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prakash Devi. ……… Petitioner. Versus Financial Commissioner (Rev. Appeals) and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Maniktala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Deepak Gupta,J (oral) : This writ petition is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 4th December, 2006, whereby she has rejected the revision petition filed by the present writ petitioner (which phrase shall include her predecessor in interest) and upheld the order of the Collector dated 10th May, 2006, dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner as time barred. - 2 - The admitted facts are that an order was passed against the present petitioner by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palampur on 9th July, 2003. The petitioner applied for a copy of the said order on 23rd July, 2003. The copy was prepared on 20th December, 2003 and it was delivered to the petitioner on 10th January, 2004 and the appeal was filed on 11.2.2004. In case limitation is reckoned from the date of delivery of the copy, there is delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. In case limitation is reckoned from the date of preparation of the certified copy then the delay is of 35 days. The petitioner’s husband had filed medical certificates before the Collector to prove that he was unwell. The Collector came to the conclusion that these are mere OPD slips and the petitioner had not been prescribed bed rest and since he was going to the hospital at Palampur, there was no reason why he could not meet his counsel and file the appeal. In our considered opinion the Collector has approached the case in a very technical manner. When a person is unwell, even though his illness may not be serious, he may not have time and energy to pursue the litigation. The delay in this case whether the limitation is calculated from the date of preparation of the copy or from the date of the receipt of the copy is not so much so as to dis-entitle the petitioner from having his case heard on merits. The normal rule is that a person should not be deprived of having his case heard on merits unless it is shown - 3 - that he is totally negligent in pursuing his case. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the petitioner was totally negligent. In fact he has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Shri Dilip Sharma, learned counsel has submitted that the litigation out of which the present writ petition arises has been going on since the year 1987 and this was the second round of litigation before the Financial Commissioner. He therefore prays that some direction be issued to the revenue authorities to decide the case of the petitioner on merits in a time bound manner. This is a very reasonable submission and is accepted. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. The order of the Collector dated 10th May, 2006 dismissing the appeal of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner on the ground of limitation and consequently the order of Financial Commissioner dated 4.12.2006 are set-aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner shall be treated to be within limitation and shall be disposed of on merits by the Collector, Palampur Sub-Division. 2. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Palampur on 24.8.2009. In case the Collector is not present or is not holding the - 4 - court on the said date, his office shall give the next date to the petitioner within the same week or latest by 5th September, 2009. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear despite the direction given by this court, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 3. The Collector shall after hearing the parties decide the appeal latest by 31st October, 2009. 4. In case any party aggrieved by the order of the Collector files an appeal or revision before the higher authority, the same shall positively be disposed of by 31st March, 2010 by the said authority. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay order is vacated. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge July 29, 2009. (Pds)