Financial Commissioner must provide reasons for denying interim relief, as failure to do so can lead to irreversible harm during pending revisions.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (ORAL) --Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. This petition impugns the order dated 14th September, 2021 passed by the Financial Commissioner. By the aforesaid order while entertaining a revision petition, the Financial Commissioner issued notice to the respondents therein. The Authority, however, after having heard counsel for the revisionist refused to grant interim relief. The order passed and impugned herein reads thus:-

"Mentioned today by Shri V. P. Rana, Counsel for Petitioners, Revision Petition under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act against the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by Additional District Magistrate (North).

1. Counsel for Petitioner requested for stay of the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 as the order is without following established procedure of law.

2. Heard Counsel for Petitioner. Interim relief prayed for is not granted. NO STAY.

3. Issue Dasti notice to Respondents on filing of PF through Counsel for Petitioner along with copy of petition.

4. List for 20.01.2022."

3. When the matter was entertained initially, this Court on 25th October, 2021 had noticed that the Financial Commissioner had failed to record even rudimentary reasons for refusing the prayer for interim stay. The Court had also taken notice of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner who contended that since proceedings on remand pursuant to the order dated 26th July, 2021 were likely to commence and proceed, it was incumbent upon the Financial Commissioner to consider the application for stay on merits.

4. Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan as well as Mr.Zahid, learned counsels, who have appeared for the State respondents, however, submit that the Financial Commissioner has not refused or rejected the application for stay in toto. According to learned counsels, a careful reading of the impugned order would clearly establish that the Financial Commissioner has merely refused to grant stay ex-parte and in the absence of the respondents. The Court is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the private respondents have been placed on advance notice, none has chosen to appear on their behalf to oppose this writ petition.

5. The Court notes that once the Financial Commissioner had deemed it appropriate to entertain the revision petition, it was incumbent upon the said Authority to consider the application moved for interim directions. Even if the Financial Commissioner came to conclude that reasons would not justify the grant of any interim relief to the petitioner revisionist ex parte, the law did require and oblige him to record reasons even if they be elementary in character.

6. The Court in the aforesaid backdrop also bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Anr. vs Raza Buland Sugar Company, (1982) 3 SCC 484 where their Lordships held thus: -

"4. We heard Mr S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to take notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the FAFO is allowed obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand Yadav would have to vacate the room and hand over the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr Manoj Swarup, learned