General Public/State Of Madhya ... vs Smt. Anju Thakur
2023 Latest Caselaw 1241 MP

                                                                 1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                          WA No. 1310 of 2022
                                   (GENERAL PUBLIC/STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SMT. ANJU THAKUR AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 20-01-2023
                                   Shri Amit Seth - Deputy Advocate General for appellant.

                                   Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Advocate for respondents.

I.A.No.13350 of 2022 - application for condonation of delay.

2. There is a delay of 1588 days in filing the writ appeal.

3. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 13.10.2017 has dismissed the

Writ Petition No.1590 of 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Review Petition No.1356 of 2017 which was disposed off by the order dated 18.01.2018. By taking advantage of the order passed by the Review Court, the writ petitioners sought to enter their names in the revenue records in April, 2022. Thereafter, the State came to know of the action of the writ petitioners pursuant to the order passed by the Review Court.

4(a). It is pleaded that on the first date of hearing, the Review Court has passed an order dated 15.12.2017, which reads as follows:

"Shri R.P. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Vishash Ranjan Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners.

Shri A.S. Pathak, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State.

Heard on I.A. No. 18060/2017 an application for condonation of delay. As per office report, the petition is barred by four days, hence, t h e application is allowed. Delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.

List the case in the next week along with W.P. No. 15190/2015, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners."

(b) On the next date, the matter was reserved for orders. Thereafter, the impugned order in the review petition was passed. 5 . It is firstly contended that the question of allowing the delay application Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 1/23/2023 3:48:33 PM

only because there was a delay of four days, is quite alien to law. Until and unless, the respondents are heard, the question of condoning the delay would not arise for consideration. Secondly, the State was not aware of the order that was passed by the Review Court. Much thereafter i.e. almost four years after the order was passed by the Review Court, the same was sought to be implemented by the writ petitioners. It is thereafter the State have moved the requisite file for filing an appeal.

6 . T he same is disputed by the respondents through their reply. Only objection is stated in para 5 of their reply which reads as follows:

"As Regards Para 5.3: It is submitted that the contentions mentioned a r e denied to the extent that appellant came to know about the judgments after the application dated 28.04.2022. The Appellant was party to the order dated 18.01.2018 and 09.03.2018 and was represented by advocate so it cannot be stated that appellant did not have knowledge about the impugned order. In case of Postmaster General and others v. Living media India Ltd. and another "it was held that the law of limitation binds everybody equally including government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used available." Additionally no evidence has been filed to support the argument and therefore relying only on the oral submission would not be legally prudent."

7 . Having considered the reasons assigned as well as the objection of the respondents, we are of the considered view that the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Firstly, is the manner in which the order was passed by the Review Court and; secondly, even after the review order was passed, almost for a period of four years, no action was sought to be taken. Thereafter, the order passed by the Review Court was sought to be implemented. Hence, we are of the view that the reasons assigned constitute sufficient cause. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

8. I.A.No.13350 of 2022 is disposed off accordingly. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 1/23/2023 3:48:33 PM

(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE sj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 1/23/2023 3:48:33 PM