[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Gagan Kumar vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:8453-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No.46 of 2020
With
I.A. No.4762 of 2020
-----
Gagan Kumar, son of Sri Madan Gopal Shah, resident of Narayan
Baba Mandir, Bara Bazar, B. Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District
Deoghar (Jharkhand).
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, Trikut-I, Birajikama Place, P.O. &
P.S. New Delhi, District New Delhi-110006.
2. The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, a
Government of India Enterprise through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7
Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, District
New Delhi-110003.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI
-----
Order No.06 Date: 25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel for the review
petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI, who appears
with Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned CGC, and Ms. Shivani Jaluka for the
Union of India.
2. I.A. No.4762 of 2020 seeks condonation of delay of 1738 days in
instituting this review petition.
3. The review petitioner had instituted W.P.(S) No.474 of 2012,
which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10th October,
2014. L.P.A. No.466 of 2014 against the same was dismissed by
the Division Bench on 16th September, 2015. It is against this
2026:JHHC:8453-DB
judgment and order that the present review petition is filed after
delay of 1738 days.
4. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out
that W.P.(S) No.1369 of 2011, which, according to him, raised an
identical issue, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20th
November, 2015. Against the same, the petitioner therein,
preferred L.P.A. No.97 of 2016, which was allowed by a Bench
whose composition was different from the Bench which dismissed
the review petitioner's L.P.A. No.466 of 2014. This was by the
judgment and order dated 21st April, 2020.
5. Mr. Roy submitted that soon after this conflicting judgment and
order dated 21st April, 2020 was delivered and came to the
knowledge of the review petitioner, this review petition was
instituted on 7th September, 2020.
6. Mr. Roy further submitted that in such matters, the length of the
delay is not as important as the quality of the explanation offered.
He submitted that before 21st April, 2020, the review petitioner
had no cause of action to file this review petition. Soon after the
cause of action accrued, the review petition was filed within a
reasonable period. Accordingly, he submitted that this delay
should be condoned and the review petition entertained.
7. Mr. Roy further submitted that if this delay is not condoned or if
the review petition is not allowed, there would be contrary
decisions on the same issue which would not be in the interest of
justice.
2026:JHHC:8453-DB
8. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI, contested the contentions of
Mr. Roy. He submitted that nothing prevented the review
petitioner from appealing the judgment and order dated 16 th
September, 2015 or instituting the review petition against the
same, if the review petitioner was confident of his legal position.
He submitted that the review petitioner has virtually sat on the
fence and is now trying to take advantage of the order dated 21st
April, 2020 made in a different matter. He further submitted that
there is no clarity whether the facts in the two matters are
identical as claimed by the review petitioner.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and we
are satisfied that this inordinate delay of 1738 days which
corresponds to approximately five years cannot be condoned
because no sufficient cause has been shown to explain the same.
10. The contention that cause of action for filing the review petition
arose only on 21st April, 2020 when the Division Bench having a
different composition allowed L.P.A. No.97 of 2016 is not correct.
The cause of action for filing the review petition arose after the
petitioner's L.P.A. was dismissed by order dated 16 th September,
2015. The cause of action cannot be confused with a new ground
accruing in favour of a party for filing a review petition.
11. The review petitioner, if aggrieved by the order dated 16 th
September, 2015, could have always challenged that order either
by filing a review petition or by a petition seeking special leave.
The delay is inordinate and the cause shown, in our judgment, is
not sufficient for condoning the same.
2026:JHHC:8453-DB
12. However, before we part with this order, we think it is our duty
to point out that the Union of India was a party to both the
petitioner's L.P.A. No.466 of 2014, which was dismissed on 16th
September, 2015 and L.P.A. No.97 of 2016, which was allowed
on 21st April, 2020.
13. Therefore, the least that was expected of the Union of India was
to place before the latter Bench the copy of the previous Bench's
judgment and order dated 16th September, 2015. By this, the
argument about alleged inconsistent orders could have been
obviated, though we agree with Mr Pallav that this is not an
acceptable explanation to condone the inordinate delay of almost
5 years in instituting this review petition.
14. Accordingly, we dismiss this interim application and, as a
consequence, the civil review petition will not survive, and the
same is disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
25th March, 2026
Sanjay/AKT
Uploaded on 26.03.2026
