Technical filing defects under Sabka Vishwas scheme cannot defeat substantive settlement when authority has already acted on the declaration.

A declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could not be refused on the basis that Form SVLDRS-1 was filed before the wrong commissionerate after jurisdictional bifurcation. The designated committee in Bhubaneswar had itself issued Form SVLDRS-2, and the declarant uploaded the required documents through Form SVLDRS-2A on that portal, showing substantive participation in the settlement process. The alleged non-exercise of the hearing option was also not treated as a valid ground to reject consideration, because the electronic process required a particular response to complete filing. The declaration had to be processed, with Form SVLDRS-3 issued and Form SVLDRS-4 following payment of dues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declarant under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could be denied processing of its declaration on the ground that Form SVLDRS-1 was filed before the wrong commissionerate and on account of the alleged non-exercise of the hearing option.

Analysis: The declaration was filed after the jurisdictional bifurcation of the erstwhile commissionerate, and the declarant could reasonably proceed on the basis that it fell within the newly constituted commissionerate. The relevant designated committee in Bhubaneswar itself issued Form SVLDRS-2, and the declarant uploaded the required documents in Form SVLDRS-2A on the portal of that commissionerate. On these facts, the objection that the declaration was presented before Rourkela instead of Bhubaneswar was treated as overly technical. The explanation regarding the hearing option was also accepted, since the electronic process could not be completed unless that option was answered in a particular manner, and that circumstance was not treated as a sufficient ground to refuse consideration of the declaration.

Conclusion: The declaration could not be rejected on the stated technical grounds, and the designated committee was required to process it and issue Form SVLDRS-3, followed by Form SVLDRS-4 upon payment of the indicated dues.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the declarant was granted access to the statutory settlement mechanism under the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A declaration under a settlement scheme cannot be denied for a merely technical jurisdictional mistake where the authority has already acted on the declaration and the record shows substantive participation in the process.

---