IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8805 of 2002 Date of Decision: December 02, 2011 Sahab Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing of order dated 05.10.2000 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Fatehabad, order dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar and order dated 10.04.2002 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Chief Canal Officer. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with respondent No.5 and others are share-holders in outlet No. RD 28050-L, Mohamadpur Rohi, Disty and they have been irrigating the land from this outlet. Respondent No.5 and others filed an application for shifting the outlet from RD 28050-L to 28030-L. the CWP No. 8805 of 2002 said application of respondent No.5 and others was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Fatehabad, vide order dated 05.10.2000 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the petitioner along with other share- holders filed an appeal before the Superintending Canal Officer and the same has been dismissed only on the ground of delay vide order dated 03.01.2001 (Annexure P/3). Aggrieved against the order of Superintending Canal Officer, the petitioner and others preferred revision petition before the Chief Canal Officer, that too had been dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2002 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 03.11.2000, therefore, the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge. It is a fact that order was passed by the Divisional Canal Officer on 05.10.2000. The order of the Divisional Canal Officer was conveyed to the petitioner on 12.10.2000. The appeal was filed on 15.11.2000. There is only 04 days delay in filing the appeal if taken from the receipt of order and no delay, if taken from the date of knowledge. It is also a matter of record that the order was not pronounced in the presence of the parties. It was subsequently conveyed to them. Be that as it may, the appeal and revision have not been decided by both the authorities i.e. the Superintending Canal Officer and the Chief Canal Officer, on merits. These have been dismissed on hyper technical ground. Justice cannot be denied on technicalities. The 2 CWP No. 8805 of 2002 petitioner does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice is defeated, as against this when delay is condoned at the most, it can happen that the cause would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. In the present case, apparently sufficient explanation has been furnished on record with regard to the delay. In fact, delay is only four days and the case of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the order as it was not pronounced in his presence. So, I am of the considered view that the matter needs to be heard on merit. In view of the above position, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 03.01.2001 (Annexure P/3) of the Superintending Canal Officer and order dated 10.04.2002 (Annexure P/5) of the Chief Canal Officer are set aside. The case is remanded to the Superintending Canal Officer to decide the appeal on merit. The parties are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer on 09.02.2012. December 02, 2011 ( Paramjeet Singh ) AK.Sharma/vkd Judge 3