Allowed

Anadi Nath Swarnkar v. The State Ofjharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC13 Dec 2018WPC/7365/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 7365 of 2016, Justice Rajesh Shankar quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, which dismissed an appeal on a technical ground regarding the omission of the legal provision in a limitation petition. The High Court held that quasi-judicial authorities should not strictly enforce procedural technicalities to the detriment of the appellant and remanded the matter for a fresh

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, in Confiscation Appeal Case No. 13/2016, was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to pass a fresh order.

Anadi Nath Swarnkar Vs The State Ofjharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 7365 of 2016

¶3

Anadi Nath Swarnkar … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh ... … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Akshay Kr Mahato, AC to Sr. SC-I -----

¶5

Order No. 10 Dated: 13.12.2018

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in Confiscation Appeal Case No. 13/2016, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of confiscation dated 23.01.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Forest Division, Ramgarh, has been rejected on the sole ground that the appropriate provision of law was not mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay filed along with the memo of appeal before the respondent no. 2.

¶7

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. It appears that the Authorized Officercum-Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Forest Division, Ramgarh vide order dated 23.01.2016 passed in Confiscation Case No. 55/2009, ordered for confiscation of the petitioner’s truck bearing no. WB-37B-4100 together with 20 tons of steam coal loaded on the same for commission of an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with limitation petition on 09.04.2016 before the respondent no. 2 which was registered as Confiscation Appeal Case No. 13/2016.

¶8

3. On perusal of the limitation petition, annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, it appears that in paragraph no. 3 of the same, the petitioner stated that he came to know about passing of the order dated 23.01.2016 on 17.03.2016 through his counsel and

¶9

¶10

thereafter he applied for certified copy of the same on 18.03.2016, which was made available to him on 30.03.2016. Despite the said fact stated in the limitation petition, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 06.08.2016 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the appropriate provision of law was not mentioned in the limitation petition filed for condonation of delay.

¶11

4. It is a settled law that the quasi-judicial authorities are not required to go into the rigours of procedure. Even if the appropriate provision of law was not mentioned in the limitation petition, it was open to the respondent no. 2 to consider the same as per the relevant provisions provided under law. Dismissing the appeal itself on such a technical ground cannot be said to be proper and justified. On the said score alone, the impugned order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in Confiscation Appeal Case No. 13/2016 cannot sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order on the limitation petition preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.

¶12

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶13

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶14

Manish

Anadi Nath Swarnkar v. The State Ofjharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anadi Nath Swarnkar v. The State Ofjharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vidya Sagar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Sudarshan Panday And Anr. Vs Revenue Department

Ratan Kumar Lal Vs State Bank Of India Through Its Chief Manager And Ors.

Nancy Kanak Lata Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak Vs Urban Development Department

Shamim Ali Vs State of Jharkhand