The court emphasized that excessive delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned without valid reasons and that the law of limitation applies equally to government entities.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the impugned Order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Revision Petition No. 505/2024 filed under section 118 (3-C) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals),  Shimla,  H.P.  whereby  the  order  dated 20.05.2024 in a miscellaneous application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been affirmed, may kindly be to set-aside and the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the present respondent may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that against an order passed by District Collector, Solan, in Case No. 17/13 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited, the State preferred an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The Appeal was preferred under Section 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1972 Act’). Learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in terms of order dated 20.05.2024, Annexure P-5, allowed the Appeal and condoned the delay in filing the Appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). In terms of impugned order dated 23.10.2024, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the said Revision Petition by returning the following findings:-

“3.  I have considered the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the revision petition as well as the record attached therewith, including impugned order. From the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, it is clear that the Ld. Commissioner has condoned the delay after hearing the parties. The Ld. Commissioner has observed that the matter remained under examination at various departmental channels right from the level of Collector to the Addition Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. and also with the advisory department at Government level. Further, the Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8577 of 2014 titled as Executive Officer, Antiyur Town, Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by LRs wherein, while condoning the delay of 1373 days, it has been held that the court must always take a justice oriented approach, while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, if, the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situation and condone the delay. In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner has accepted the application of the respondent after proper consideration of facts and law and passed a well reasoned and detailed order on 20.05.2024, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal on behalf of the respondent/State.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 20.05.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner in Miscellaneous Application filed by the respondent/State in Appeal No. 85/2023 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd. and as such the same is hereby upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petition is not worth admission and as such, the same is dismissed in limine alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as le