- (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the Regional Director, Jharkhand Agricultural Marketing Board dated 27th July, 2007 (Annexure-8) whereby the delay condonation in preferring the appeal was dismissed and also against the order passed by the Managing Director of the Board dated 12th June, 2008 (communicated on 18th July, 2008) at Annexure-11 to the memo of petition whereby delay in preferring the revision application has also not been condoned.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially a writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 602 of 2005 was preferred by the petitioner before this Court and it has been decided by this Court vide order dated 14th February, 2005 that as the appeal has been provided under the Jharkhand Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the petitioner shall prefer an appeal. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: Let it be clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not in any way prejudice the case of the petitioner, in the event the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in its own merit. It is also observed that the respondents shall supply certified copies of all the documents that have been asked for by the petitioner. Thus, it was directed by this Court that appeal shall be decided on merits. Though, delay condonation application was preferred in appeal, the Regional Director, Jharkhand Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi has observed in the impugned order dated 27th July, 2007 at Annexure-8 that there are no papers for delay condonation and, hence, the delay is not condoned and it is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that several reasons had been given for condonation of delay. Initially, a writ petition was preferred, thereafter, letters patent appeal was also preferred and some time has been consumed in the High Court and there was illness of the appellant also, who resides at Jamshedpur. Though, several reasons were given and despite the direction was given to decide the dispute on merits, delay has not been condoned and that too by thoroughly a non-speaking order, the whole appeal has been brushed aside by the concerned respondent authorities. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Regional Director of the Board dated 27th July, 2007 was never received till 10th September, 2007 and, therefore, revision application was not preferred within time. The revision application was preferred on 5th November, 2007. Thus, it was within 45 days as per Section 27C of the Act, 1960. This aspect of the matter is especially reflected in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the delay condonation application. Revision Application No. 4 of 2007 has also not been appreciated at all by the Managing Director of the Board and he has also dismissed the revision application vide order dated 12th June, 2008, which was communicated on 18th July, 2008 and, therefore, both these orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. Delay in preferring Appeal No. 4 of 2006 may be condoned and respondent authorities may be directed to hear the appeal on merits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that as the petitioner has not submitted any evidence for condonation of delay, therefore, the delay has not been condoned in preferring the Appeal No. 4 of 2006. Likewise, no evidence was given for condonation of delay in revision also, therefore, the same has also been dismissed and, therefore, both the impugned orders are true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts of law and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.;