Hon. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the private respondent does not oppose the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, inasmuch as, his client has not filed an objection to the application, despite an opportunity to that effect having been granted by this Court. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay, allow the application (CLMA No. 4077 of 2012) and thereby condone 59 days’ delay in preferring the appeal.

2. In the writ petition, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellants and hence this appeal. The reason for imposition of the penalty was that the traditional application form was tendered by the writ petitioner with the appellants on 22nd January, 2011 for being sent by Speed Post to the office of the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Haridwar, but the appellants, instead of sending the said application to Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Haridwar, sent the same to another institution situate at Roorkee. In the circumstances, in the absence of the traditional application form, petitioner missed an opportunity of appearing before the Interview Committee for being appointed as Lecturer (Physics). Before the judgment and order under appeal was 2

rendered, writ petitioner had approached the Consumer Forum, Dehradun seeking recovery of compensation from the appellants for deficiency of service. The Consumer Forum, Dehradun has awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs in favour of the writ petitioner by an order dated 15.9.2011. This order was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition. For the selfsame fault, appellants cannot be penalized twice. They, having already been penalized by awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-, cannot be penalized once again with the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and substitute the penalty by the sum awarded by the Consumer Forum, namely, Rs. 20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as has already been awarded, in favour of the writ petitioner, which the appellants assure us, would be paid to the writ petitioner within two months from today. This will not prevent the appellants from recovering the same from such of its officer(s) for whose fault, appellants have suffered the penalty / compensation / costs as above.