Allahabad High Court
Bareilly Development Authority vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88405-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 191 of 2024
Applicant :- Bareilly Development Authority
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Chauhan,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. The instant review application has been filed seeking review of the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No.9136 of 2008 (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal & others vs. State of U.P. Thru' Secy. and others), by which, the writ petition was partly allowed.
2. It is evident from the material placed on record that challenging the said judgment of this Court, the applicant approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s).13019 of 2020 (Bareilly Development Authority vs. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal and others etc.). The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by order dated 07.11.2022 on the ground of delay.
3. The applicant, thereafter, filed Civil Misc. Review Application No.250 of 2023 (Bareilly Development Authority of Bareilly vs. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal and 2 others) before this Court. It was got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2023 with liberty to file fresh review application in view of the fact that there were certain mistakes in the review application.
4. After rejection of the earlier review application, the applicant got the instant application reported on 14.12.2023 after about seven months. The delay, at that time, was reported to be of 2570 days. The stamp reporting section, at that time, also reported two defects; firstly, that the certified copy of the High Court's order should bear Court fees stamp of Rs.83/- and, secondly, the dates and events were not attached. The review application was filed after a period of four months thereafter on 18.04.2024, after removing the defects. The casual approach of the Development Authority is, therefore, apparent on the face of record, at every stage of proceedings.
5. Once, the Supreme Court did not condone the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, all the reasons stated above including the rejection of Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay, are sufficient to persuade this Court not to entertain the review application on merits and the legal maxim vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, which means that the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, is squarely applicable against the applicant-Development Authority in the instant case.
6. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to condone delay and, consequently, the review application is rejected on the ground of delay.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Jyotsana
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
