State of M.P. vs Kamla Doorwar

Heard on IA 3161/2014 an application for condonation of delay in filing this review petition.

This review petition for review of the order dated 24/2/2006 passed by this Court in WP 1048/2006.

From perusal of the order under review, it is clear that the order was passed on 24/2/2006. This review petition has been filed in 2014. It is mentioned in the order dated 24/2/2006 that the State was represented by the Government Advocate. It means that the Government had knowledge about passing of the order under review.

We have perused the application for condonation of delay. In the application, there is no mention to the effect that there is delay of how many days in filing the review petition. It shows carelessness of the Department. It is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that when notice of contempt was received, then this review petition has been filed. In our opinion, there is inordinate delay of near about eight years in filing this review petition.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, has held as under in regard to the facts which could be taken into consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay.

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

In view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court, no case is made out for condonation of delay in filing this review petition. Hence, the application IA 3161/2014 for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed as barred by time.