State of M.P. vs Sardar Nirmal Singh

Heard on I.A. No. 3030/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Reply of the application has been filed.

Earlier this court deferred the hearing of this review petition on the ground that the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench that whether the review petition is maintainable against an order or judgment if SLP filed against the same order or judgment has been dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the review petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the interim order passed by this court. It was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6341-6342 of 2014 and was disposed of vide order dt. 14.7.2014 with the following directions:-

"Having heard, learned counsel for the parties while we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order for status quo for the present. We are of the view that the Registry of the High Court should list the Review Petition No. 261 of 2012 for an early disposal of the case, preferably by 31st October, 2014. In case this review petition is not disposed off by 31st October, 2014, the appellant may file a petition to vacate the order of status quo passed in review application.

The appeal stands disposed of."

Hon''ble Supreme Court has directed to dispose of this review petition up to 31st October 2014, hence, the review petition is listed for hearing.

There is a delay of 671 days in filing the review petition. Hence, the petitioner has filed the I.A. for condonation of delay.

This review petition has been filed for review of the judgment dt. 30.8.2010 passed in S.A. No. 109/2005. Against the same judgment, an SLP was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was registered as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 21054/2011 and was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 3.1.2012. Hon''ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:-

"There is an inordinate delay of 369 days in filing the special leave petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered.

The Special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation."

By the aforesaid order, Hon''ble Supreme Court has refused to condone the delay of 369 days in filing the SLP. In the present petition, the petitioner prayed that the delay of 369 days, which was in Special Leave Petition and also delay of 180 days subsequent to passing of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the SLP, be condoned.

In our opinion, we could not condone the delay of 369 days, which was not found satisfactory by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in filing the SLP on the following observation:-

"We are not satisfied with the explanation offered."

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, has laid down following principles in regard to considering the facts by the Court in the matter of condonation of delay after considering earlier judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court:-

"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic 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."

There is delay of 180 days after passing the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. That delay has also not been explained properly.

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the application for condemnation of delay has no merit and it has to be dismissed.

Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the petitioner be permitted to avail other remedies available to the petitioner under the law.

The petitioner is always at liberty to pursue the remedy, if any, is available to the petitioner under the law. However, there is no merit in this application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. It is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed.

No order as to costs.