|COURT:||Bombay High Court|
|CORAM:||S. C. Dharmadhikari J, Vibha Kankanwadi J|
|COUNSEL:||Hiten Chande, J.D. Mistri|
|DATE:||August 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||September 12, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a 'patently false' affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its' Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated|
(1) We find that the explanation or reason given in paragraph 3 of this affidavit to be patently false. If paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of this affidavit-in-support cannot be reconciled, then, it is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue’s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it’s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals. The Appeals are dismissed for non-removal of office objections. This Court and it’s Registry derives no pleasure in dismissing the Appeals without adjudication on merits. There is a certain sanctity attached to the procedural rules. Unless and until they are complied with, no matter can be said to be ready for admission or final hearing. If the Revenue and it’s officials are aware of lodging and filing of an Appeal, then, they must attend alongwith their Advocate, the Registry’s office and take the requisite steps. Their abject failure rightly results in dismissal of their Appeals. Even in the present case, more than one opportunity was granted to remove the office objections. This Court, on its judicial side cannot routinely set aside the orders of the Registry. The proceural rules cannot be set at naught or rendered redundant merely because the Government or Revenue is the litigant. The office objections being not removed within the time specified, all consequences under the rules follow. Pertinently, neither the procedural rules, nor the power of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to dismiss the Appeal as above or refuse it’s registration are challenged. Hence the Notice of Motion is dismissed.