Gujarat High Court
Vikramsinh Manubha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16815 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
VIKRAMSINH MANUBHA PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the petitioner and learned Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined AGP Ms. Sukhadwala for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, at length.
3. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Quash and set aside the punishment order dated 4.3.1999 and 27.8.2020 passed by the respondent No: 4, Annexure-A and Annexure-J to this petition respectively, and (B) Quash and set aside the order dated 11.8.1999 passed by the appellate authority respondent No: 3, Annexure-B to this petition, and (C) Quash and set aside the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by the revisional authority respondent No: 2, Annexure-C to this petition, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 4.3.1999, 11.8.1999 and 16.3.2020, Annexure-A, B and C respectively to this petition, and/or (E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No: 4 to forward the appeal/ revision of the petitioner dated 12.6.2020, Annexure-
I to respondent No: 1 for being decided on merits, and/or (F) Award the cost of this petition, and/ or (G) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would submit that respondent No. 2 herein - Revisional Authority, has committed a serious error while not condoning the delay in preferring the revision application by the petitioner and without appreciating the material aspect and sufficient cause though made out, rejected the revision of the petitioner on technical ground of delay, instead of examined his case on merit. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was removed from his services as Armed Police Constable, State Reserve Police Force vide order dated 4th March 1999 and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority while dismissing his appeal on 11th August 1999 and the same ought to have been revised by the Revisional Authority while exercising its Revisional power.
5.2. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would respectfully submit that as the petitioner was facing criminal trial wherein he was found convicted by Session Court and thereupon, he had to prefer Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 before this Court, Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined which came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioner on 22nd November 2017, thereafter, petitioner having regained himself confidence and able to prepare the revision, thereby, submitted before the Revisional Authority. It is respectfully submitted that fact which are narrated in the revision application requires to be considered sympathetically by the Revisional Authority having wide discretion to condone the delay in filing the revision application, which is not at all appreciated in true letter and spirit, resulted into miscarriage of justice.
5.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would respectfully submit that as the petitioner was removed from his service, not financially sound, having lost his elder brother as he was murdered and as a counterblast, the petitioner was wrongly implicated by the opposite group in a got-up offence of murder of one of murderer of his brother and so also due to the ill-
health of his old-aged mother, the petitioner could not approach the Revisional Authority within the stipulated time. It is respectfully submitted that in past, the Revisional Authority did condone such lapses by condoning the delay on the part of other revisionist who approached belatedly before Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the Revisional Authority. It is respectfully submitted and placed reliance upon some of the few instances, whereby, the Revisional Authority, having exercised its discretion in favour of other revisionist, not only condoned the delay, but in the case of absence from the service where police personnel dismissed from service, such punishment was modified by awarding lesser punishment of stoppage of increment. 5.4. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would respectfully submit that petitioner having good case on merit, inasmuch as, punishment which was inflicted upon the petitioner not sustainable in law as there is no provision under the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1965, whereby, police personnel can be inflicted punishment of "deletion of his name"
from the department.
5.5. So, making above submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay humbly requests that this Court may exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby, condone the delay in filing the revision application and respondent No. 2 - Revisional Authority may be directed to decide case of the petitioner on its merit.Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 5.6. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would request this Court to allow the present petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4:
6.1. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would vehemently oppose this petition contending inter alia that petitioner having not made out any sufficient cause in delay in filing revision application, as such, there is no error committed by the Revisional Authority when dismissed his revision on the ground of delay.
6.2. Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would respectfully submit that there was ample opportunity available with the petitioner to approach the Revisional Authority once his appeal came to be dismissed in the year 1999, but for reasons best known to the petitioner, he took almost 20 years to approach the Revisional Authority when filed revision in year 2019. It is submitted that such gross delay on part of petitioner is without any just and reasonable cause, not condonable one. So, in that view of the matter, no error of law committed by the Revisional Authority when rejected his revision.
Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 6.3. Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would further submit that at all stages, respondents have observed principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner was served with the notice before initiation of departmental inquiry against him wherein he remained absent and as such, he was dismissed from his service due to his unauthorized absence from service. It is respectfully submitted that the tenor of the operative portion of impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority which confirmed by appellate authority may not be construed otherwise, as ultimately, petitioner was in fact, dismissed from his services. 6.4. Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would further respectfully submit that as per the settled legal position of law, unless and until, any sufficient cause made out by the revisionist, delay cannot be condoned by the Revisional Authority, otherwise, it may face with allegation of arbitrariness and misuse of its discretionary power.
6.5. Learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would respectfully submit that instances which are placed on the record of this matter by petitioner in support of his submissions, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in appropriate cases where sufficient cause made out and the Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Revisional Authority found substance in the submission of the revisionist concerned, delay might have condoned and decided the matter on its merits, which is not the case on hand. 6.6. Making the above submissions, learned AGP Ms. Sukhadwala would request this Court to reject the present petition.
7. No other and further submissions are being made by the respective learned advocates.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following facts would emerge which are as under:
(i). The petitioner appears to have been appointed on the post of Armed Police Constable, SRPF on 21st December 1983.
(ii). The elder brother of the petitioner came to be murdered on 6th November 1997. Thereafter, it appears that one FIR being C.R. No. I-319 of 1998 came to be registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station, Ahmedabad against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, he was found convicted by the Sessions Court. It may be Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined noticed here that the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner for alleged murder of one of the accused who alleged to have committed the murder of his elder brother.
(iii). At the same time, the petitioner having remained unauthorized absent from his service, subjected to departmental inquiry by the Respondent Authority, wherein found guilty, he was dismissed from his service.
Although, in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 4th March 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority would observe that the petitioner is deleted from department. It may be poor expression by disciplinary authority while passing order but in fact, petitioner dismissed from his service.
(iv). The departmental appeal was also filed by the petitioner but the same was not entertained by the Appellate Authority, whereby, it dismissed such appeal vide its judgment and order dated 11th August 1999.
(v). Likewise, the petitioner has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2006 before the Division Bench of Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined this Court, which came to be allowed on 22nd November 2017. Whereby, he was acquitted from all charges leveled against him in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR lodged against him.
(vi). After that, only on 11th November 2019, the petitioner thought it fit to approach the Revisional Authority by way of revision challenging the aforesaid impugned order dated 11th August 1999 and 4th March 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority respectively, wherein, there was huge delay found and not satisfied with explanation coming forth from the side of the petitioner, the Revisional Authority rejected the revision vide its impugned order dated 16th March 2020 on the ground of delay itself.
9. Having gone through entire set of aforesaid facts and so also impugned revision application preferred by the petitioner after about 20 years from passing of order by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority as the case may be, no sufficient cause made out by the petitioner in such revision application.
10. True, the power is available with the Revisional Authority to Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined condone the delay, but only when good cause shown to it, it will have to be exercised, otherwise not. The paramount consideration of any Court/Authority having power to condone the delay would be to satisfied itself that a sufficient cause made out by applicant in the application. As per the settled legal position of law, sufficient cause should be construed liberally and in a case where it is made out on record by the applicant, the Court/Authority normally condones the delay, thereby, can decide the matter on its merit.
11. At the same time, it is also well-settled position of law that when there is gross delay, inasmuch as, there is gross negligence on the part of the applicant to approach the Court/Authority by substantial delay, heavy burden cast upon such person to explain the delay in a manner whereby the Authority can satisfy itself that the applicant is prevented by a cause which can be construed as sufficient cause.
12. Having appreciated the submissions so canvassed by learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay & learned AGP and so also independently tried to find out as to whether any sufficient cause made out and is there any legal handicap on the part of the petitioner, whereby, he could not approach the Revisional Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Authority at given point of time. But, after appreciating the submissions and so also after going through the pleadings of petitioner made in his revision, this Court is unable to find out any such legal disablement - handicap on the part of the petitioner except bare words coming forth from side of the petitioner that he was faced with aforesaid criminal case. It requires to be noted here that all throughout, the petitioner was either on bail and later on acquitted by this Court in the year 2017, there was nothing to show that he was prevented by any cause which can be construed as sufficient cause thereby not filed revision within reasonable time.
13. This Court cannot be oblivious of the recent past decisions/judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, it has laid down certain criteria which require to be taken note by every Court/Tribunal/Authority while adjudicating the delay application or examining plea of condonation of delay. One of such pertinent observation would be that where in a case of any gross inordinate delay whereby applicant found negligent for not initiating proceeding in time and non-observance of due diligence, even though there may be a sufficient cause, such delay should not be condoned on any condition. Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 13.1. It would be apt to rely first relied upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors., reported in 2024 (4) Scale 759, wherein, after revisiting the law on the aspect of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a Court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is apparent that the words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant (See Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81). The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, and are reproduced as under:
"21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (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.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (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.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (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.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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. 21.9. (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.
21.10. (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."
(Emphasis supplied) 13.2. It is also profitable to refer to and rely upon ratio laid down by recent past decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India in a case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) BY L RS & ORS V/S Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 (4) SCR 241 : 2024 (4) Scale 846, wherein after referring to its previous decisions, summarized the case law on the issue of limitation vis-a-vis condonation of delay in context of Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined "sufficient cause". It has been so observed and held as under, "[26] On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
(emphasis supplied) 13.3. It is also profitable to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of case of Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (14) SCC 81, wherein it is held as under:-
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(Emphasis supplied) 13.4. Even, recently also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (DEAD) By Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported In 2025 INSC 1104, in clear terms held that where there is delay/laches on the part of the applicant in not prosecuting the legal remedy, in the absence of any sufficient cause made out by the applicant, the Court should not condone the delay while exercising its power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the case of Shivamma (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
"258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16815/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the position of law as it stands as on date, when this Court does not find any sufficient cause made out by the petitioner when he filed the revision, no error much less any error of law, can be found in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, when it has rejected the revision application on the ground of delay.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons, having not found any merit in the petition, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:38:07 IST 2025