Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer Zilla ... vs Ambadas Yeduba Jumde And Others on 20 November, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:31904-DB
1 ca-6737-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6737 OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 26394 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6728 OF 2019
1. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad Aurangabad,
Aurangabad, Taluka and
Dist. Aurangabad
2. The Education Officer (Primary).
Zilla Parishad Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad
3. The Chief Account Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad ...Applicants
Versus
1. Ambadas s/o Yeduba Jumde & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
...
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 11, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 20, 2025
JUDGEMENT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.):
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the learned
AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. By this Civil Application, the Applicants/Original Respondent
Narwade/
2 ca-6737-2025.odt
Nos.4 to 6 in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019 are seeking condonation of
delay of 3 years and 3 months in filing Review Petition, seeking review
of order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019.
3. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that though the
order of which the review has been sought is passed on 11.06.2019,
however, considering the fact that the said order involves financial
implications, the Applicants have decided to file Review Petition. The
learned Counsel for the Applicants further submits that the Applicants
being local self-government required some time to take policy decision
of filing Review Petition. It is further contended that, the decision
making process of the local self-government is clumsy and time
consuming. It is further contended that the Applicants after receiving
the instructions from the State Government of filing Review Petition
took some time to complete the necessary formalities as well as
procedural compliances hence there is a delay of 3 years and 3 months
caused in filing the Review Petition which is not intentional or
deliberate nor the Applicants are going to derive any benefit by filing
the Review Petition beyond period of limitation. The learned Counsel
for the Applicants therefore submits that there is sufficient cause for
filing the Review Petition beyond the period of limitation and therefore
the delay deserves to be condoned.
Narwade/
3 ca-6737-2025.odt
4. It is true that while considering an application for condonation of
delay a liberal and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. It is also
equally true that it is not the length but the explanation of delay that
needs to be considered.
5. To appreciate the contentions of the Applicants, it would be apt
to reproduce the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil
Application as under :-
"3. The applicants say that, the local self-government had to take a
policy decision to file a review petition of the decision of this Hon'ble
Court, invoking review jurisdiction predominantly on the ground that
extension of the benefits is a mistake, capable of being rectified and
especially in the wake of the undertakings executed by respective
petitioner (respondents No. 1 herein) to refund the amounts, if found
to have been paid in excess, at a later stage. However, the decision
making process of the local self-government is clumsy and time
consuming, there has been a delay of about 3 years 3 months in
invoking the review jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the present
application is being filed seeking condonation of the said delay.
4. The applicants says that, it has also received instruction from the
State Govt. for filing a review petition against the impugned decision
and sequel thereto, by completing the necessary formalities and
procedural compliances, the applicants have filed a present petition,
seeking review of the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court in W. P.
No. 6728 of 2019 dated 11.6.2019. However, in the process there has
been a delay of about 3 years 3 months, which deserves to be
graciously condoned by this Hon'ble Court as the same being neither
intentional nor deliberate. Similarly, the applicant is not likely to
derive any benefit by filing the review petition beyond the period of
limitation."
6. No doubt that the Applicants are local self-government, however,
even then the law of limitation would apply with all its rigour. Similarly
either it is a private litigant or a government and local government
authority showing "sufficient cause" is a sine qua non. Merely because
Narwade/
4 ca-6737-2025.odt
the Applicants are the local self-government does not mean that they
can be exempted from showing the sufficient cause. It is pertinent to
note that there cannot be a different yardstick for a private litigant and
the local self-government or a government agency when it comes to
considering the application for condonation of delay. While dealing
with an issue as to whether the government bodies or their agencies
can be exempted from showing sufficient cause and giving reasonable
and acceptable explanation for delay in filing the proceedings, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General and Others Vs.
Living Media India Limited and Another reported in (2012) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 563 has held as under :-
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well
aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed
period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special
leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed
with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the
absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a
question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely
because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party
before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides, a liberal concession has to be
adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the
facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal
machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds
everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have
Narwade/
5 ca-6737-2025.odt
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was
bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that
the file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The
government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that
they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the
benefit of a few."
7. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3612, while considering the expression "sufficient cause" in paragraph
5 has held as under :-
"5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the
Court beyond limitation, the petitioner 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 Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, it was held by this Court that
even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has
to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A
reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v.
Pyare Ram wherein, it was held as follows:
"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an
application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause
has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:
"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 bona fide 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 case there was no
sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court
on time condoning the delay without any justification,
Narwade/
6 ca-6737-2025.odt
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."
14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High
Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay
condonation application of the present appellant."
Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to
be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case
and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally
interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed
to the party.
5.1 In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his
legal heir, wherein, one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) was a member, after
referring to various decisions on the issue, it was in unequivocal terms
observed by this Court that delay should not be excused as a matter of
generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice
to the opposite party. .... "
8. The Apex Court in the same judgment in paragraph 7 observed
thus :-
"7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not
ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that
whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance
of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right
from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2
years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the
period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has
to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that
period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the
last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came
in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day
and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last
day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation
to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier,
the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or
circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible
to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after
the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There
may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation
which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the
limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed
must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See:
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, (1981) 1 SCC 495: AIR
1981 SC 733)"
Narwade/
7 ca-6737-2025.odt
9. It would also be profitable to refer to the judgment of this Court
in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills
Ltd. Reported in (2015) 276 CTR 473, wherein, while dealing with
delay condonation application in filing Review Petition by the
Applicants therein, this Court in paragraph 14 has observed thus :-
"14. .... The officials ought to realize that the Court cannot assist the
Departments merely on the plea of larger public interest or protection
of public revenue being involved. If that is the reason for which they
feel that the delay deserves to be condoned, then, they ought to have
realized that the same warrants their acting diligently. The same also
requires them to act swiftly and by upholding the status and dignity of
the office. Public officers have a public duty to perform and if they fail
to act accordingly, then, we cannot go on accepting such versions and
coming belatedly as noted above."
10. Thus, from the submissions advanced as well as from the
averments in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the Civil Application as referred
herein above, the explanation offered by the Applicants seeking
condonation of delay certainly do not constitute a "sufficient cause", as
there is absolutely no plausible explanation seeking condonation of
delay except stating that the Applicants being a local self-government
had to take policy decision to file Review Petition so also by stating that
since the decision making process of local self-government is clumsy
and time consuming causing delay of 3 years and 3 months in filing the
Review Petition. No doubt for filing certain proceedings administrative
sanctions are required however, by no stretch of imagination it can be
said that it takes more than three years. The Applicants being a local
Narwade/
8 ca-6737-2025.odt
self-government is expected to be more vigilant in pursuing such
matters. In the light of dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Postmaster General and Others (supra) as well as State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary (supra) and the observations of this
Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harinagar Sugar
Mills Ltd.(Supra), we are of the opinion that the Applicants have failed
to show sufficient cause while seeking condonation of a huge and
inordinate delay of 3 years and 3 months. As observed hereinabove, a
different yardstick cannot be applied for a private litigant and the local
self-government while considering the application for condonation of
delay. Thus, in our considered view the Civil Application filed by the
Applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing Review Petition is
devoid of any substance and the same is liable to be rejected at the
threshold. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
i. Civil Application stands rejected. No order as to costs.
ii. In view of the rejection of Civil Application for condonation of
delay in filing Review Petition, Review Petition does not survive and the
same stands disposed of accordingly.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.]
Narwade/
