State Of J&K & Anr vs Sajad Hussain Mir
2023 Latest Caselaw 1290 j&K/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                   AT SRINAGAR
                                                 Reserved on: 04.10.2023
                                                 Pronounced on:07.10.2023

                            CM No.4998/2019
                                  in
                             RP No.44/2019

STATE OF J&K & ANR.                                ...PETITIONER(S)
       Through: - Mr. Mubeen Wani, Dy. AG.

Vs.

SAJAD HUSSAIN MIR                                ...RESPONDENT(S)
       Through: -   None.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE


                                 JUDGMENT

1) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the

review petition against order dated 12.10.2017 passed by this Court. It is

stated that the matter was under examination with the applicants and

thereafter the Court allowed another identical writ petition bearing SWP

NO. 885/2018 on the ground of being similar in nature, covered by the

judgment dated 12.10.2017 in case of Sajad Hussain.

2) The reason projected by the applicants in seeking condonation of

delay in filing the review petition is that the question of filing review

petition was examined by the applicants in the light of records and in the

process the record was collected from various subordinate offices and

legal advice was also sought from the Department of Law, Justice and

Parliamentary Affairs. It is stated that the time was consumed while taking

CM No.4998/2019

decision for filing appeal/review at various levels. The Law Department

granted sanction vide communication dated 29.05.2019 and the applicant

No.1 vide communications dated 14.06.2019 and 04.07.2019 requested

the applicant No.2 to file the review petition. After receiving the relevant

record, the learned counsel took some days for drafting and filing the

review petition and finally the same was filed on 25.07.2019.

3) Mr. Mubeen Wani, learned Dy. AG, argued that the applicants have

made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as such, the delay

deserves to be condoned.

4)     Hear and perused the record.


5)     The perusal of the record reveals that this Court vide order dated

12.10.2017 disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. In

the instant application the only ground that has been demonstrated by the

applicants is that the matter was examined at various levels and finally the

sanction was granted by the Law Department vide communication dated

29.05.2019. There is nothing on record to establish as to when the

applicants/review petitioners obtained copy of the order dated 12.10.2017,

particularly when the judgment was passed by this Court in presence of

counsel appearing for the applicants. There is absolutely no averment in

the application as to what steps were taken by the applicants/review

petitioners in the year 2018. Merely the fact that the matter was examined

at various levels can hardly be a ground for condoning the delay. In this

context it would be apt to take note of the observations made by the CM No.4998/2019

Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.,

(2012) 3 SCC 563', which are 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.

(emphasis added)

6) Further in "State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654', the

Hon'ble Apex Court has under:

4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents". In para 4, a reference has been made to "bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs".

5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

(emphasis added)

CM No.4998/2019

7) Examining the case of the applicants/review petitioners for seeking

condonation of delay, this Court finds that they have miserably failed to

demonstrate sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the

instant application is found to be misconceived and is dismissed. The

necessary corollary of the dismissal of application for condonation of

delay is the dismissal of the review petition as well.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR 07.10.2023 "Bhat Altaf, PS"

                   Whether the order is speaking:     Yes/No
                   Whether the order is reportable:   Yes/No




CM No.4998/2019