Officers on ‘seat of responsibility’ must be careful while passing orders: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Chandigarh, May 24

In a stern warning to the babus acting mechanically, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the officers occupying “seat of responsibility” were required to be careful in passing orders merely on the basis of communications received. Justice Jaishree Thakur of the High Court also made it clear that such orders would reflect total non-application of mind. The ruling came in a case where the Deputy Commissioner ordered the attachment of a rice mill’s property in Pungrain’s favour merely on its asking. The Bench ruled the order was totally without jurisdiction and not sustainable.

The matter was brought to Justice Thakur’s notice after a petition was filed against Punjab and other respondents by Rajinder Singh Gill. He was seeking the quashing of an order dated March 20, 2013, passed by Gurdaspur DC on the basis of which his property stood attached.

Justice Thakur observed the petitioner, sole proprietor of M/s Gill Rice Mills, was allegedly handed over paddy for milling for 2012-2013. It became subject matter in criminal proceedings, wherein the petitioner stood acquitted. The dispute was now pending before an arbitrator.

Justice Thakur also took note of his counsel’s submission that a suit filed M/s Gill Rice Mills for recovery of Rs 8, 72, 13,125, along with interest, stood decreed in his favour. Even appeal against the judgment and decree was dismissed and second appeal was now pending before the High Court. The part payment had already been made in the execution proceedings. But the respondent-Deputy Commissioner asked the revenue authorities to attach the petitioner’s land even though there was no court order in Pungrain’s favour to warrant the issuance of such a letter.

Justice Thakur asserted neither was there any evidence on the record, nor was an argument addressed on the provision of law under which the property could be attached merely on Pungrain’s asking. It is an admitted fact that Pungrain was a “judgment debtor” in terms of the civil suit allowed in the petitioner’s favour.

Setting aside the order, Justice Thakur asserted it was totally without jurisdiction and not sustainable. It would, as such, be open for the petitioner to apply to the revenue authorities for correction of the entries made in the revenue record.

Justice Thakur added: “It is the court’s opinion that the officers occupying seat of responsibility, as in the case in hand, to be careful in passing such orders merely on the basis of such a communication received.” — TNS

Non-application of mind

• In 2013, then Gurdaspur DC ordered attachment of property in Pungrain’s favour sans court nod
• Justice Jaishree Thakur made it clear that such orders would reflect total non-application of mind