Harish Chander vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J

The applicant/petitioner has filed the instant application seeking condonation of 446 days delay in filing the Review Petition against the judgment dated 03.04.2017 passed in SWP No.635/2013 by virtue of which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of in the light of the compliance report filed by respondent No.3.

In the application, it has been stated that pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the writ petitioner under the provisions of the RTI Act, the respondents have taken a contrary stand in the proceeding wherein the respondents have denied filling up of 36 vacancies under the ST category or allotment of the same to a Physically Handicapped candidate in ST Category. It is further stated in the application that immediately on attaining the copy of the order dated 03.04.2017, the petitioner on 10.04.2017 filed an RTI application under J&K right to Information Act, 2009. However, on getting no response to the RTI application, the petitioner preferred the First Appeal under the J&K RTI Act, 2009 on 23.10.2017; that the First Appellate Authority did not pass any order in the First Appeal, the petitioner as such, was left with no option than to file the Second Appeal under the RTI Act before the J&K State Information Commission on 17.01.2018; that the above referred Second Appeal was disposed of on 06.06.2018 though the order was issued vide order dated 19.06.2018 by stating that no post was filled under ST category from Handicapped person. The petitioner immediately applied for the copy of the same. However, on obtaining the copy, the petitioner could not approach the Hon'ble Court as at that time the summer vacations were going on in the Hon'ble court. It is further stated that the statutory period of 30 days is prescribed under the Limitation Act as well as the High Court rules and there is a delay of 446 days in filing the accompanying Review Petition. However, since the relevant order passed in second appeal under the RTI Act was passed only on 19.06.2018 which gave a cause of action to present the review petition, as such, the delay caused which was otherwise beyond the control of the petitioner may kindly be condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused documents annexed therein.

From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that same has been passed on 03.04.2017, the applicant has applied for issuance of certified copy of order impugned on 25.07.2018 after about 15 months and filed present petition for review on 26.07.2018 .Therefore total delay in filing the review petition is 446 days from the date of judgment. Review has to be filed within 30 days from the date of order or judgment.

Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of procedure and do not create any rights in favour of any person nor do they define or create cause of action but simply prescribe that the remedy could be exercised only upto a certain period and not beyond it. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not to be liberally construed to such an extent that the rules are rendered inconsequential and reduced to a 'dead provision' on the Statute book. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner so as to save the system from anarchy. Why should there be a time frame prescribed under law for a legal remedy? Law of Limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy. Time is precious and the wasted time would never resist. So, a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to an unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. It is enshrined in maxim, "Interests reipublicae up sit finis litium (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigant). Every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner, so as to save the system from anarchy. Although certain latitude must be given in filing review but that does not mean that law of limitation in filing such petition shall become redundant or superfluous. Law is also clear that each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent.

In present case, so far as the averments made in the application are concerned, it may be said that there is a gross negligence on the part of the applicant as no valid ground has been given for the reason as to why a delay of 446 days had occurred. There is so much of gross negligence on the part of the applicant that even the word 'sufficient cause' has not been used by him in the application. After the expiry of period of limitation a vested right is created in a party which cannot be defeated easily. The delay of 446 days (more than one year) has occurred and applicant has miserably failed to satisfy the court with regard to delay in filing the review petition. All the grounds mentioned are general in nature without specification of date and month as to when he came to know about the fact of passing judgment. The grounds mentioned are self created, in order to create illusion of facts that applicant has sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay.

Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the review petition is also dismissed as barred by time.