IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.526 of 2009 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Sheela Kumari Singh and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2009, whereby the learned Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, has condoned the delay in filing the revision petition. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court would not interfere in a judgment, even if it is wrong, so long as there is no inherent illegality or lack of jurisdiction in passing the order. 3. The revision petition is purported to have been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. No limitation is prescribed under Section 17 of the Land Revenue Act and the Financial Commissioner has the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… authority to entertain a petition at any time. The expression “at any time” has been the subject matter of a number of judicial decisions. It has always been read to mean the normal time requisite for filing a petition. Each case depends upon its peculiar facts. The decision in each case has to be made on the basis of the averments made in such case. The impugned decision was made at the back of the State and according to the State it was not aware of the decision till the same was communicated to it by the Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, there was delay in filing the revision petition. Even after taking decision to file a revision petition, the State took three months to file the same. These are the matters, which have been considered by the learned Financial Commissioner. His order may be right or wrong but it does not lack jurisdiction. Therefore, especially in a case where limitation has been condoned, this Court would normally not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside such an order. 4. True it is that there is delay of 17 months in filing the revision petition, but the fact remains that even the petitioners approached the authorities after 17 years of the allotment of the land under the Scheme. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to contest this order on this technical ground. 5. Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the revision petition itself is not …3… maintainable, since under the Scheme there is no provision for filing the same. This is a question which has to be decided by the Financial Commissioner and is left open for decision by him. Mr. Lall has also drawn my attention to various observations made by the learned Financial Commissioner, wherein he has virtually gone into the merits of the case. In my opinion, the learned Financial Commissioner would be better advised not to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and should have confined his discussion strictly to the question of limitation alone. 6. In view of the above discussion, though I uphold the order of the learned Financial Commissioner insofar as condonation of delay is concerned, it is clarified that any observation made by him on the merits of the case were totally uncalled for and, therefore, while deciding the revision petition on merits, he shall not be swayed by any observation made therein and shall decide the revision petition on merits. As already noticed, the question whether the revision petition is maintainable or not shall also be decided by the learned Financial Commissioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 11, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J