Decided on May 03,2010

Kapil Rattan Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, impugned order was passed by District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Nahan, while disposing of Complaint No.107/2004, on 8.12.2004. Appellant was ex -parte in this case. A perusal of the facts detailed in this application as well as grounds of appeal indicate that according to the appellant, it had deputed Mr. Sukh Dev, L.D.C. to attend the hearing that was fixed on 5.11.2004. He, as per averments made in the grounds of appeal and in this application, waited at Nahan for the District Forum till 4.00 Oclock. There were no proceedings held on that day Thereafter according to the appellant, it was waiting for the next date of hearing to be informed by the District Forum. On the other hand, complaint file shows, that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, as such the District Forum set the appellant ex -parte, and then proceeded to decide the case.
(2.) WE propose to dispose of the application for condonation of delay, as well as the appeal on merits. It was not disputed on behalf of the appellant that application for issuance of passport was received in the office of respondent No.2. According to this respondent, this application was forwarded alongwith police report on 1.2.2003 to the office of the appellant. Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned A.D.A. has produced the office file pertaining to this case. Its perusal shows that the application of respondent No.1 duly complete in all respects with police report was forwarded besides six other applications in the manner to the office of the appellant.
(3.) WHEN the passport was not issued, respondent No.1 got legal notice issued through his learned Counsel as per copy, Annexure -C on 3.6.2004. It was submitted by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the record that for the first time on 28.9.2004 it was intimated to respondent No.1 that there are some discrepancies in the police report, as such after doing the needful, police report be sent again. This stand was seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Sharma, learned A.D.A., as according to him no such letter was received in the office of respondent No.2. Only one letter was received in the office of respondent No.2 from the appellant and it is dated 29.9.2004. It was duly replied to by respondent No.2 on 11.10.2004. He has shown us the record of both these letters from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour. According to Mr. Thakur, letter dated 11.10.2004 was received on 21.10.2004, thereafter passport was issued on that very day. Thus, according to him, there was no delay, muchless inaction on the part of the appellant.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.