[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Rajmangal Developers Through Its ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8864
1 RP-193-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 193 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S RAJMANGAL DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR.
JINESH JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Sohit Mishra - GA for the applicants.
Shri Harish Dixit - Sr. Advocate with Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for the
respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated
8.4.2024 passed in WP No.4392/2024.
Heard on IA No.994/2026, which is an application for condonation of
delay.
In para 3, the respondents have given the various dates in a tabular
form to make out a case for sufficient cause for condonation of delay. On
going through the table and the averments made in the table, we find that it is
nothing but stating about the movement of the file from one office to another
in the government office, which is not sufficient to make out a case for
condonation of a huge delay of more than 600 days.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicants submits that a liberal view
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8864
2 RP-193-2026
may be taken in regard to the condonation of delay as the review is sought
by the State government. We do not find any merit in the said submission as
the Apex Court in the case of Post Master General Vs. Living Media Ltd.,
(2012) 3 SCC 563, whereby it has been held that the law of limitation binds
everybody equally Government and defence. In the case of Amalendu
Kumar Bera and othersVs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 52, the Apex
Court held that a liberal approach in the case of the State as a litigant is not
warranted in the absence of sufficient cause.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case for condonation of a
huge delay of more than 600 days is made out.
IA No.994/2026 is accordingly dismissed.
However, we considered the case on merit as well and we have heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
The main submission of learned counsel for applicants is that the
Court had committed an error while not considering that there was an
alternative remedy to the writ petitioners for resorting to the dispute redressal
system. On going through the reply, we find that the case of the writ
petitioner was not disputed on merit, and no such objection was raised in the
reply. Since the claim was not disputed on merit, therefore, in para 5 this
Court rightly observed that the respondents/applicants herein in review have
not disputed the case on merit. Once the case is not disputed on merit, the
plea that the parties should have resorted to the dispute redressal system does
not arise. Apart from that, the Court had considered the stand of the
respondents that in regard to the subsequent Circular of the government, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8864
3 RP-193-2026
Court has held that the said Circular is prospective and the same would not
apply to the agreement which was already executed prior to the issuance of
the circular by the government.
Counsel for non-applicants submitted that the Circular itself clarifies
that the same would be applicable prospectively. Thus, on merit as well, we
do not find any error apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the review
petition. The same is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
VM
