Allowed

Hmt Ltd. v. Haryana State Polluction Control Board & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2009CWP/3456/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HMT Limited filed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Authority's refusal to condone delay in filing an appeal against an assessment order. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Authority to hear the appeal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; delay in filing appeal condoned; direction to Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of appeal within six months.

Hmt Ltd. Vs Haryana State Polluction… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 3456 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.03.2009

HMT Limited

..Petitioner

versus

Haryana State Pollution Control Board and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Present : Mr. R.K.Chibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Chibbar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

¶11

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)

¶12

Issue notice of motion to the respondents.

¶13

Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent of the parties, this petition has been heard for final disposal.

¶14

The only question that falls for consideration before us in the present writ petition is whether the Appellate Authority was justified in declining condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal by the petitioner against an order of assessment, a copy whereof has been produced as Annexure P-11 to the petition.

¶15

It is common ground that the order of assessment is appealable under Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978. The period of limitation prescribed for any such appeal in terms of Rule 9(3) of the said Rules is 30 days from the date of communication of the order to the party concerned. The

¶16

CWP No. 3456 of 2009

¶17

[2]

¶18

proviso to Rule 9(3), however, empowers the Appellate Committee to condone the delay in filing of the appeal provided it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. Petitioner appears to have made an application for condonation of delay in terms of the said proviso which has been dismissed by the Appellate Committee resulting in dismissal of the appeal as time barred. The present writ petition as already noticed calls in question the correctness of the said order.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the petitioner had made out a case for condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. In fairness to Mr. Walia, we must mention that even he has not seriously opposed the idea of the appeal being heard and disposed off on merits instead of being dismissed as time barred. We say so, especially when the petitioner's entire case before the Appellate Authority was that it had been assured by the officers of the Pollution Control Board that in case a revised return is filed correcting the error in the earlier return, the matter shall be looked into and a revised assessment order made. The revised return was advised by these officers with a view to correcting, what was according to the petitioner an apparent clerical error in the return earlier filed by it. Be that as it may, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, do not in our opinion, justify decline of an order of condonation in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

We accordingly allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing of the appeal and direct the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously but not later than six months from the date, a copy of the order is received. No costs.

¶21

(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶23

04.03.2009 'ravinder'

Hmt Ltd. v. Haryana State Polluction Control Board & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hmt Ltd. v. Haryana State Polluction Control Board & Ors.

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

Suresh Goel Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Universal Humn Rights Organisation Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Daya Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jai Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Subhash Nagpal and Ors. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

M/S Bajrang Trading Company Mansa Pb. Vs Custom Excise and Service Appellate Trb. and Ors.