The State of Haryana through Collector & Anr. v. M/s Hans Raj Punia

Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants Mr.Puneet Bassi, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Vide judgement and decree dated 19.09.2006, suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed as under: “A decree for declaration is passed to the effect that notices bearing no. 743/D/Ex. Dated 28.08.2001 and 769/Ex. Dated

11.09.2001 issued by the defendant no. 2 requiring the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 23,35,200/- on account of non-lifting of quota of the country liquor for the year 2000-01 and Rs.1,65,906/- on account of interest for late payment of licence fee for the said year are illegal, null and void. Defendants are restrained from recovering any amount from the plaintiff on account of the said illegal notices. Decree RSA No.1751 of 2010(O & M) 2 sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” The said judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the State of Haryana by filing an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which was partly allowed holding that the defendant- appellants could recover the interest qua payment of licence fee but cannot recover excise duty as mentioned in the notice dated 28.08.2001 and

11.09.2001. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: “It is ordered that the impugned judgment and decree dated

19.09.2006 is set aside as far as interest about late payment of licence fee is concerned, but is affirmed about excise duty. Defendants can recover interest qua late payment of licence fee but cannot recover excise duty as mentioned in notices dated 28.08.2001 and 11.09.2001. Appeal is partly allowed as per these terms with costs.” Still not satisfied, the State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal. It is relevant to point out that the sanction to file appeal was given by the Law Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer to Government of Haryana, Law and Legislative Department, in anticipation of Government sanction and as per the desires of the Administrative Head of the Department and there is nothing on record to establish that law department found it a fit case for filing the instant appeal. This appeal was filed after expiry of the prescribed limitation period and there is a delay of 336 days in filing this appeal, before this Court. The only ground taken in the application for condonation of delay reads as follows: That in order to file the appeal against the impugned order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Ld. Ist Appellate Court (District Judge, Bhiwani), the case has to be processed at different levels of the Government. Firstly, it was examined by RSA No.1751 of 2010(O & M) 3 District Attorney, Bhiwani, who opined that it was not a fit case for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble High Court yet the same time he also opined that the department is at liberty to file the appeal at their own level if they so desire. As such the matter was referred to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, who after examining the entire case has decided to file the present appeal and in this process delay of 336 days occurred. Noticing that the applicant-appellants have failed to explain the delay caused at different levels of the Department while processing this case for filing the appeal, this Court had directed the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Excise and Taxation to file an appropriate affidavit. Vide order dated 06.09.2010, the Office of Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana was also directed to produce the record of taking the decision to file an appeal on the date fixed, i.e.today. In stead of the complying with the aforesaid order, today, Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has placed on record a photo copy of Memo No.4595/DA-A-II dated 05.10.2010 and on instructions from Mr.Madan Lal Sharma, Deputy DA, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, who is present in the Court has stated that the Government has decided to withdraw the present appeal. The relevant para of aforesaid letter reads as follows: “The case has been re-examined and it has been decided to withdraw the above said R.S.A. Hence, therefore, there seems to be no necessity to file an affidavit explaining delay.” From the narration of aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that firstly this appeal was filed by the Department without any justification and and now when they were directed to produce the record in respect of filing RSA No.1751 of 2010(O & M) 4 of the appeal, a decision has been taken by the appellants to withdraw the appeal. The conduct of the appellants itself speak volume about their functioning. Instead of watching the interest of the State Exchequer, the litigation is filed by the appellants at the whims of the Administrative Head of the Department, which has caused wastage of precious time of the Court. Keeping in view all the facts and surrounding circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the appellants should be burdened with exemplary costs so that the same can act as a deterrent to stop such frivolous litigation to be filed at the behest of the State Government. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Mehar vs.UOI, Ministry of Railways & Ors. RA No.68 of 2007 in CWP No.18346 of 2005 decided on 20.05.2009 has imposed a costs of ` 1 lac holding that no one can be allowed to waste the precious court time. In the instant case, this Court is fully satisfied that a lot of time of the Court is wasted by the State by filing this appeal. Relying upon the aforesaid judgement, this appeal is dismissed with costs which are quantified at ` 1 lac. Let the costs be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within one month from today. Before parting with this judgement, this Court is constrained to direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana to hold an enquiry into this serious lapse and fix the responsibility of the person/officer/official(s) who were at fault at various levels in not taking care of the case filed by the State. The employees of the State, who are paid salary from the public funds, are expected to work and take care of the interest of the State. After fixing the responsibility, the amount of loss suffered by the State(including the costs)should be recovered from the RSA No.1751 of 2010(O & M) 5 guilty person(s)after giving due opportunity of hearing to him/them. A copy of the action taken be placed on record of this Court.

06.10.2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE