IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3475 of 2009 Date of decision: March 5, 2009. Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Others ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the court, Shri Harmanjit Singh Thiara, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents to No.2 to 4, who are the contesting respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) – cum- appellate authority, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Disputes Settlement Committee (DSC) has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Shorn of the details, the petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 2.5.2006 asking him to pay Rs.34048/- plus surcharge of Rs.3210/- by the PSEB authorities. The petitioner sought reference of his case to DSC after depositing 1/3rd of the demanded amount. The DSC turned down the petitioner's petition vide an order dated 14.11.2007. The petitioner alleges that meanwhile, he was hospitalized on account of lower back-ache and was advised complete bed rest, due to which he could file the statutory appeal on 11.3.2008 only. The appellate authority, however, has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation and without going into the merits. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the approach of the appellate authority is hyper-technical. It has failed to appreciate the explanation rendered by the petitioner which led to the delay in filing of the appeal. There is absolutely no reason to discard the medical evidence produced by the petitioner to substantiate his stand that his movements having been restricted due to back-ache, that the appeal could not be filed within time. Otherwise also, the duration of delay is not of such a magnitude as to prove fatal to the merits of the appeal. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority, namely, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) to decide the appeal on merit and in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. March 5, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge