Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Abhishek Grover – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner & Ors – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12528 of 2022 & Review Pet. 16 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Rohit Krishna Naagpal and Dipanshu Gaba, Advocate along with Petitioner in person.
Arun Panwar, Advocate, for the Respondent-1.
Parikshit Mahipal, Advocate along with Respo 2 and 3 in person.
The main legal point established is that the Divisional Commissioner has the power and jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Review of Order - -
Fact of the Case:
This is a review petition filed by Review Applicant/Petitioner seeking review of the order dated 14th December, 2022 passed by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Review Applicant/Petitioner had appeared before the District Magistrate on several dates and had adequate opportunity for representation. The Court also determined that the Divisional Commissioner had the power and jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits.
Issues: The issues raised were the ex parte nature of the original order by the District Magistrate and the power and jurisdiction of the Divisional Commissioner to remand the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Review Applicant/Petitioner had sufficient opportunity for representation and that the Divisional Commissioner had the power to decide the appeal on merits.
Final Decision: The review petition was disposed of with the direction for the Divisional Commissioner to ensure strict compliance with the order passed by the Court on 14th December, 2022 before taking up the appeal for hearing.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
REVIEW PET. 16/2023
2. This is a review petition filed by Review Applicant/Petitioner - Abhishek Grover seeking review of the order dated 14th December, 2022 passed by this Court. The operative portion of the order reads:
"6. Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the above is only an interim order, it is directed that the ld. Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal pending before him, within a period of one month without being affected by the findings in the earlier interim order dated 23rd August, 2022.
7. Till such final order is passed by the ld. Division Commissioner, the interim order granted by this Court in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 30th August, 2022, shall continue, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- per month by the Petitioner, to the Respondents. The same shall be payable by the 10th of every month.
8. The present petition is disposed of in these terms, along with all pending applications."
3. The grounds urged by Mr. Nagpal, ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant/Petitioner are:
i) That the original order of the ld. District Magistrate, Central District (hereinafter, "District Magistrate") dated 7th July 2022 was rendered ex parte without notice to the Review Applicant/Petitioner;
ii) That the ld. Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter, "Divisional Commissioner") before whom the appeal arising out of the aforementioned order of the District Magistrate is pending, does not have the power and jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate.
4. Mr. Nagpal, ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant/Petitioner relies on the order sheets of the proceedings before the District Magistrate in support of his submission that for two dates of hearings, no notice was issued to the Review Applicant/Petitioner. Further grievance of the Review Applicant/Petitioner is that on 15th November, 2021, the next date of hearing before the District Magistrate was fixed for 17th January, 2022, however matter not taken up on that date. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surinder Devi v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 19006 of 2016 to submit that the Divisional Commissioner does not have the power and jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate.
5. The Court has perused the order sheets of the District Magistrate. The same show that the Review Applicant/Petitioner was aware of the proceedings before the District Magistrate and had appeared before the District Magistrate on several dates of hearings including on 11th December 2020, 13th August 2021, 15th February 2021, 15th November 2021, etc. It is further noticed from the order sheets of the District Magistrate that the next date of hearing in the matter is announced on each date. It is also noticed that there is no order sheet for the hearings on 17th January, 2023.
6. The Review Applicant/Petitioner having appeared before the District Magistrate on several dates ought to have been diligent in finding out the next date of hearing in the matter. Moreover, even if on 17th January, 2022, the hearing was not held for whatever reasons, the matter was again taken up on 8th April, 2022, 2nd May, 2022 and was finally reserved on 6th June, 2022. Thus, this Court does not believe that the Petitioner/Review Applicant did not get adequate opportunity for representation before the District Magistrate.
7. The second issue as to whether the Divisional Commissioner has the power and jurisdiction to remand the matter, does not arise at this stage inasmuch as the Divisional Commissioner who is entertaining the appeal can decide the appeal even on merits. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Review Applicant would in fact mean that the Division Commissioner would have to hear the matter on m
