Union Of India vs Prasanthan K.B
2026 Latest Caselaw 462 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 462 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Prasanthan K.B on 16 January, 2026

RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

                                  1

                                                     2026:KER:3267

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                  &

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

  FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947

                         RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

        AGAINST   THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED   14.01.2025   IN   OP

(CAT) NO.164 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN OP(CAT):

    1       UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN
            RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN - 600001

    2       THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
            SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI, PIN - 600001

    3       THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER
            TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
            TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695014

    4       THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
            TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
            TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695014


            BY ADV SHRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE, CGC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN OP (CAT):

            PRASANTHAN K.B
            AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O BAHULEYAN KK, RETIRED SENIOR TECHNICIAN C AND
            W/ERM CD, RESIDING AT KELAMANGALATH EDAKOCHI,
 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

                                  2

                                                      2026:KER:3267

         KOCHI, PIN - 682010


             SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN - R1

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2026,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

                                3

                                                    2026:KER:3267

                         JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of

delay. The review petitioner has filed this application seeking

condonation of a delay of 210 days.

2. The judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.164 of 2019 was

delivered on 14.01.2025. The petitioner received the certified

copy of the judgment on 21.02.2025. The Central Government

took a decision to file a review petition vide e-mail dated

07.03.2025. However, the review petition was filed on 26.09.2025

after a period of six months after taking decision to file the

review for which there is no reason to assign for such a delay.

3. The learned Counsel for the review petitioners

contended that the delay is purely due to administrative

reasons, and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent

opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay has not been RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

2026:KER:3267

properly explained. When the decision was already taken on

07.03.2025, to file the review petition then it is not known as to

why the review petition was filed on 26.09.2025, no explanation

has been rendered in the application. The law is settled that in

case day-to-day explanation is not furnished the delay cannot be

condoned.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the review petitioners,

the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on several

occasions, dealt with the issue of delay and rendered judgments,

which are reproduced below:

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan 1

6.1 The learned Supreme Court in Karnataka Power

Corporation Ltd. held as under:

_______________

(2006) 4 SCC 322 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

2026:KER:3267

" 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powersif there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu2

6.2 The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan

Raja has held as under:

"11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit."

_________________

(2007) 9 SCC 78 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

2026:KER:3267

Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswas 3

6.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt.

Primary School Council held as under:

"11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be countenanced."

Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana4

6.4 The Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal held as under:

"18. That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution."

___________________

(2007) 12 SCC 779

(1997) 6 SCC 538 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

2026:KER:3267

Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India5

6.5 The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass has held

as under:

"6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."

7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, we find no justification to grant any

indulgence to the review petitioner against the judgment under

review, as no plausible explanation has been put forth in the

__________________

(2007) 9 SCC 274 RP NO. 1302 OF 2025

2026:KER:3267

application seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, the present

review petition suffers from an inordinate delay which is

unexplained in approaching this Court against the judgment

dated 14.01.2025 passed in OP (CAT) No. 164 of 2019. Hence, the

petition for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.