AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 K.M. JOSEPH, C.J   Â
 1. There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was
discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department instructed the concerned
official to contact the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel who, in pursuance thereof contacted the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and the
case was allotted to the State Counsel. Thereafter, it is stated that documents relied on were in Hindi, so it was directed to be translated in English.Â
It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to
translate the document. Permission for filing Revision was received by the Law Department on 28.05.2013.  Copies of the translated orders were
received by the Department on 11.06.2013 and after receiving the same, it was provided to the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, which also
consumed time.   It is stated that In-charge Officer did not re-allot the files, for the reasons best know to him. When the said fact came to the
knowledge of the Department, the files were re-allotted as there were several files pending for preparation of the Revisions, which consumed
time.  It is further stated that Departmental proceedings have been initiated against the Officers and there is reference to copy of chargesheet
dated 26.07.2017.Â
After hearing Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist, we do not think that there is sufficient reason to condone the delay of
1819 days in filing the Revision. Â
Accordingly, Application for Condonation of Delay (CLMA No. 5365 of 2018) will stand rejected. Â Consequently, the Revision also stands
dismissed.Â