HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 58/2019
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communciation, Department of Posts, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
3. The Director, O/o The Post Master General Western Region, Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent of Posts offices, Churu Division Churu.
5. Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Ajmer Division Ajmer.
----Petitioners Versus Raghuvir Singh Dhaka S/o Late Shri Shivpal Singh Dhaka, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o War No. 42 Sujangarh, District Churu. (Presently working as Sub Postmaster at Salasar Post Office Churu Division).
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushan Rastogi on behalf of Mr. B.P. Bohra.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order 08/04/2021 This review petition is filed by the review-petitioners seeking review of order dated 08.08.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent herein, was allowed.
The review petition is reported to be barred by limitation for 601 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 09:09:31 PM)
(2 of 2) [WRW-58/2019] Precisely, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is that the matter was examined at different levels in the office of review petitioners and then decision was taken to file review petition and the delay has been caused on account of procedures adopted at different level by the Government.
A perusal of the review petition reveals that after the judgment being pronounced by this Court, the matter for taking decision for further appeal or review was processed by the review- petitioners in most casual manner.
Suffice it to say that the explanation furnished for inordinate delay of 601 days is not plausible and acceptable and in no manner constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of 601 days and, therefore, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed and consequently, the review petition deserves to be dismissed as barred by time.
However, in the interest of justice, we have perused the review petition as well.
As a matter of fact, by way of this petition, the review- petitioner wants this Court to re-hear the matter on fresh grounds, which cannot be permitted.
Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.
Consequently, the review petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J 10-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2021 at 09:09:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)