P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD F. C.‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, dated 27th May 1954 by which he partially accepted the appeal of the petitioners Messrs. Red Path Brown & Co. and‑ reduced, the amount of penalty imposed on them under the Punjab Minor Minerals Rules from ten times the royalty to an amount equal to it.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that on a report by the Garrison Engineer that the petitioner company had used 17000 cft. of shingle in their work, the Collector called upon them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them for unauthorized quarrying of this mineral. The petitioner company pleaded that they did not quarry the mineral which was supplied to them by different persons. The Collector found that this plea was not established and he imposed a penalty at ten times the royalty due. As already mentioned, the Commissioner has reduced the penalty to the actual amount of royalty on the ground that the petitioner firm was of good reputation and they were merely negligent in not ascertaining from their suppliers‑that the mineral had been quarried legally. The company have now come up in revision.

3. The main point that‑has been argued before me relates to the interpretation of rule 3 (2) of the Minor Mineral Rules, which runs as follows "(2) A person, not being a permit‑holder, who is found in possession of any recently quarried mineral, shall be deemed to have quarried the said mineral without a permit, unless he furnishes proof to the satisfaction of the Collector, that the said mineral was quarried by a permit‑holder." It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that at the time when the Garrison Engineer made his report to the Collector, the mineral was not in the possession of the petitioners and had already been used up in buildings which were in the custody of the Garrison Engineer himself. Further, all fiscal laws are to be construed strictly and in cases of doubt, advan tage should be given to the subject. If the rule in question is interpreted in accordance with this general principle, the petitioner company were not found in possession of any recently quarried mineral though they had been‑in possession of it at some time having purchased it from certain suppliers. But if past possession was to be taken into account, the Collector should have gone into the matter in greater detail and investigated whether the allegations made by the petitioners were in fact correct.

4. It is contended on behalf of the Crown that the revision petition should be rejected on grounds of limitation. No time limit is imposed under the Land Revenue Act for considering revision petitions, but Financial Commissioners as a matter of principle have declined to interfere in revision if applications are made after expiry of the period of limita tion laid down for filing appeals; unless there are very exceptional circumstances to the contrary. The petitioners did not make a proper application for a copy of the Collector's order till 30th September 1954 and a copy was granted the same day. It is true that they had sent a telegram to the Collector asking for a copy of his order, but a telegram cannot be considered a proper application under the copying rules. Thus if the general practice observed by the Financial Commissioners is followed, the petition should be thrown out on the ground of limitation. It is argued, on the other hand, that the despatch of the telegram constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Further, as an important legal principle, namely interpretation of rule 3 (2) of the Minor Mineral Rules is involved, the Financial Commissioner should exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioners. I am inclined to accept this view and would hold that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In view of the observations made in paragraph 3 of my order, I would hold that the petitioner Company has not been found in possession of a recently quarried mineral, I would accept this revision and remit entirely the penalty imposed on the petitioners. The petitioner is to be informed. A. H. Petition accepted.