MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only grievance raised in the present writ petition is condonation of delay of one year by the learned Board of Revenue in first appeal filed by the State by the impugned order dtd.29.1.2001 (Annex.8).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Varun Goyal urged that the reason assigned by the State in seeking condonation of delay in its application filed by it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that due to preparation for Lok Sabha elections by the officials, the appeal could not be filed within limitation, was absolutely wrong since Lok Sabha elections were admittedly over prior to 5.6.1995, the date on which the impugned order in the first appeal was passed. The appeal was filed by the State before the learned Board of Revenue on 15.6.1996 after about one year, after prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Varun Goyal therefore, urged that said delay could not be condoned by the Board of Revenue. He also submitted that further proceedings before the learned Board of Revenue have been stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.8.2001 and the appeal is, therefore, still pending before the learned Board of Revenue. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order dtd.29.1.2001 deserves to be quashed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that even though the reason assigned by the State in its application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was unsustainable as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the fact remains that condonation of delay is a discretionary matter and looking to the facts of this case, condonation of delay in the present case of 11 months approximately, cannot be held to be arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretionary powers by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb that order at this stage. The appeal filed by the State, therefore, deserves to be decided on its merit.