Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Meena Kumari And Anr on 13 October, 2017
$~SB1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13 th October, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 6615/2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Satyendra Kumar, CGSC with
Mr. Mool Chand, Office
Superintendent.
versus
MEENA KUMARI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Suman Kapoor, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.9320/2017 (Delay)
1. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of 112
days' delay in filing the application (C.M. No. 9319/2017) for recall of the order
dated 21.09.2016 passed by this Court.
2. Heard.
3. Since there is no opposition to the present application, the same is
allowed. Delay in filing C.M. No.9319/2017 is condoned.
4. Application stands disposed of.
C.M. No. 9319/2017
5. This is an application filed by the review petitioner seeking recall of the
order dated 21.09.2016 by which the review petition filed by the petitioner
stands dismissed for non-appearance.
6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that he has no objection to
the prayer made in this application.
7. Heard.
8. Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the fact that there
is no opposition to the present application, the same is allowed. Order dated
21.09.2016 is recalled. Review Petition is restored to its original number and
file.
9. Application stands disposed of.
C.M. No.32164/2016 (Delay in filing) & C.M. No.32165/2016 (Delay in re-
filing)
10. C.M. No.32164/2016 has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation
of 416 days delay in filing the review petition and C.M. No.32165/2016 has
been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of 136 days' delay in re-filing
the review petition.
11. Counsel for the applicant submits that delay of 416 days in filing the
review petition has occurred on account of bonafide reasons and not on account
of any negligence or inaction. Counsel further submits that the delay of 136 days
in re-filing has occurred on account of the fact that the defects could not be
cleared within 30 days.
12. Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the applications lack material
particulars. It is further contended that the applications do not disclose any
ground much less cogent grounds to seek condonation of delay. Counsel, thus,
prays that the prayers made in these applications should be rejected.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The review petitioner seeks
condonation of 416' days delay in filing the review petition and condonation of
136 days' days delay in re-filing the review petition. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce the contents of the application (C.M. No.32164/2016) seeking
condonation of delay:
1. That the Petitioner is filing the Review Petition against the
final order dated 19.1.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court
in W.P. (C) NO. 6615/2014, along with present application
for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition.
2. There is a delay in filing the present Review Petition.
3. The said delay in filing the Review Petition is attributable
to the fact that the decision to file a Review Petition is
taken after the matter is considered at various official
levels post legal opinion taken by the Ministry of Defence
& Air Force from its Advocates.
4. That the delay caused is wholly unintentional and bonafide
and it is necessary in the interest of justice that the same is
condoned.
PRAYER
In these premises, the petitioner most respectfully prays that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
a) Condone the delay of 416 days in filing the accompanying
Review Petition against the final order dated 19.1.2015 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 6615.2014; and/or
b) Pass such further order/s, direction/s as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER
SHALL EVER PRAY.
14. A reading of C.M. No.32164/2016 would show that the delay is
sought to be condoned on the ground that the matter was considered at
various levels, post legal opinion taken by the Ministry of Defence or Air
Force from its advocates. In our view the application is not bonafide, the
application is devoid of any particulars, not a single date has been
mentioned. While in all cases, each and every days delay may not be
explained, but in the present case, we find the application to be highly
casual in nature. In the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India
Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Apex Court held as under:
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for
the delay and there was bona fide 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.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of
various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably
failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. In the present case, we find that the application does not disclose any
ground much less a cogent ground for condoning the delay of 416 days. The
applications lack material particulars. Resultantly, C.M. No.32164/2016 stands
dismissed. Consequently, C.M. No.32165/2016 seeking condonation of delay in
re-filing the review petition is also dismissed. We find it strange that it took
106+30+416 days for the applicant to obtain certified copy of the order of which
review is sought.
16. Both the applications are dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by
the applicant to the respondents.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. Mehta, J
OCTOBER 13, 2017/ck
W.P.(C) 6615/2014 Page 4/4
