Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur And 2 Others vs Khumukcham Robindro Singh on 30 January, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.06 16:15:18 +05'30' Page |1
Item No. 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Review.Pet.) No. 10 of 2024
Ref:- Review Pet. No.
Ref:- W.P.(C) No. 369 of 2022
The State of Manipur and 2 Others
Applicants
Vs.
Khumukcham Robindro Singh
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
ORDER
30.01.2025
Mr. M. Devananda, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Ms. Naorem Jyotsana Devi, learned counsel appears on behalf of the review
petitioners and Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. RK
Banna, learned counsel, appears for the respondents.
The present miscellaneous review application has been filed by the
review petitioner for reviewing the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition
in WP(C) No. 369 of 2022 by this Court whereby the said writ petition of the
respondents was disposed of directing to count the service of the petitioners
commencing from the initial officiating appointment w.e.f. 03.02.1986 till the
regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 13 of the
Rules 1977 read with the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2003.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction passed by this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition in WP(C) No. 369 of 2022, the review applicant has preferred
an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1394 of 2023 (State of
Page |2
Manipur Vs. Khumukcham Robindro Singh and Others and SLP (C) No. 2901 of
2023 (State of Manipur Vs. Ahanthem Abani Singh and Others) and the said SLPs
came to be dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner department had chosen to file
the review application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated
06.02.2023. The said review application came to be listed in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 31.10.2023 and the same also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant review application along with
condone application for condoning the delay of 635 (six hundred thirty-five) days
in filing the review application. In the aforesaid condone application, the petitioner
has stated the reason that the aforesaid review application came to be dismissed
on 31.10.2023 and thereafter, the file has been forwarded to the Minster Fishery
on 05.12.2023 and Deputy Secretary (FY), in this regard, FD(PIC) was requested
to obtain the views or comments and by letter No. 22/3/2023-FD(PIC) dated
07.11.2023 it is stated that all fresh proposals for similar linking up of past service
to be kept on hold in view of the Cabinet decision and thereafter, the Administrative
Department (AD) was requested to put such case of linking up of past service on
hold for the time being and thereafter, on 08.12.2023, the Assistant Secretary (FY)
put up to seek advice/comments from the learned Advocate General in this regard
to take further course of action.
On 11.12.2023, the Secretary (FY) put up before the Commissioner
(Law). On 13.12.2023, the Commissioner (Law) put up for examination to Deputy
Secretary (Law) and the Deputy Secretary (Law) as desired by Administrative
Department (AD) file was referred to learned Advocate General for advice and the
same was submitted before the Commissioner (Law).
Page |3
On 13.12.2024, the Commissioner (Law) submitted for seeking advice
from Advocate General. On 21.12.2023, the Advocate General, Manipur, in view of
the legal proposition involved herein, particularly, the fact that the writ petitioners
were regularized not against the regular substantive posts but after creating
supernumerary post in 2019 only for the purposed of regularization w.e.f 2019 and
to stop opening up of flood gate of litigation a curative petition may be filed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by taking legal advice and guidance from the
learned Attorney General of India. Thereafter, the file was put up before the Chief
Secretary, Manipur for necessary consideration. Again, to the Commissioner Law,
Manipur, as advised by the learned Advocate General and again the said paper was
placed before the Secretary, Fishery on 29.12.2023 and thereafter, there is no
detail explanation submitted by review applicant in the affidavit till filing of the
review application on 17.07.2024. That means from 29.12.2023 till 17.07.2024,
after more than 7 (seven) months, there is no explanation in affidavit in filing the
review application before this Court and then, the application is filed with a delay
of 635 days in filing the review petition along with Review Application.
This Court is of the view that after considering all the aforesaid dates
and events which has been furnished by the petitioner department in the condone
application this Court is not satisfied with the explanation given for condoning the
inordinate delay in filing the review application by the applicant before this Court
and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others,
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, clearly states that the said delay in filing the
review application by the other parties, when the department has not chosen to
Page |4
file the condone application within the reasonable time and to submit the
explanation to satisfy the Court for condoning the delay. If the Court is not satisfied
with the reason for such delay the Court cannot consider to condone the delay in
filing such application and therefore, this Court, in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee and subsequent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been clarified that
unexplained delay in filing the review application is not to be considered by the
Court and the Court cannot grant such concession to the parties for condoning the
delay in filing the review application. In such circumstances, there is no sufficient
reason for condoning the delay of 635 (six hundred thirty-five) days in filing the
review petition. In this circumstances, this Court rejects the said application filed
by the review petitioner.
The learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased)
Through Legal Representatives and Others Versus Union of India and
Another, (2023) 10 SCC 531 in paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 39, 40 and 41 which
read as follows :
"31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an
acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range
may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long
periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and
acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an
'explanation' and an 'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give
someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps
clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to
point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really
not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an
'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although people tend to see
'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out
the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine,
is real.
Page |5
32. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny responsibility
and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action.
Calling something as just an 'excuse' would imply that the explanation
proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that
caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of
delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be
decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is
only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for
condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those
hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim
does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.
33. Be that as it may, it is important to bear in mind that we are not
hearing an application for condonation of delay but sitting in appeal
over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for
condonation of delay. In the case of the former, whether to condone or
not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has
been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for
condonation would be the question. Law is fairly well-settled that "a
court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion
exercised by the courts below". If any authority is required, we can
profitably refer to the decision in Manjunath Anandappa v.
Tammanasa, which in turn relied on the (2003) 10 SCC 390 on the
decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor
Sabha13 where it has been held that
"an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is
not right but only when it is clearly wrong". (emphasis in original)
34. The order under challenge in this appeal is dated 21-12-2011.
It was rendered at a point of time when the decisions in Mst. Katiji
(supra), Ramegowda (supra), ChandraMani (supra), K.V.Ayisumma
(supra) and Lipok AO (supra) were holding the field. It is not that the
said decisions do not hold the field now, having been overruled by any
subsequent decision. Although there have been some decisions in the
recent past [State of M.P. v. Bherulal is one such decision apart
from University of Delhi (supra)] which have not accepted
governmental lethargy, tardiness and indolence in presenting appeals
within time as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, yet, the
exercise of discretion by the High Court has to be tested on the anvil of
the liberal and justice oriented approach expounded in the aforesaid
decisions which have been referred to above.
35. .......................................
36. ...................................
37. ....................................
38. ......................................
39. According to Mr. Sharma, University of Delhi (supra) is a decision
by a larger Bench and, therefore, binding on us. This Court, while
deciding University of Delhi (supra), was seized of a situation where
even if the delay were to be condoned, it would cause grave prejudice
to the respondent Delhi Metro Rail Corporation at the instance of the
casual approach of the appellant University. This Court, on the
Page |6
argument of non- availability of the Vice Chancellor for granting
approval to file the appeal, and other reasons put forth in the matter,
could not conclude that there was fulfilment of sufficient cause for
condonation of delay; hence, the refusal to condone the delay. The
decision really turns on the facts before this Court because of the
prejudice factor involved.
40. We can also profitably refer to Koting Lamkang (supra), cited by
Mr. Sen, where the same Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court
which decided University of Delhi (supra) was of the view that the
impersonal nature of the State's functioning should be given due
regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nit-picked at the
cost of collective interest. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
"7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the
Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace
in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding
whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse
to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly
affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the
State, should not be condoned.
8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the
impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual
officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in
injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by
the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not
usually be individually affected." (underlining ours, for emphasis)
41. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions,
we feel that the High Court's decision to condone the delay on account
of the first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for
the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting
interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an
exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-
oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be
provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing
an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of
limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the
legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure
unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the
grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking
a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests."
This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 32 therein that
there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for
Page |7
condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be
decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses,
and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays
to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to
ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.
It is clear from the averments made in the affidavit filed by the review
applicant that there is no explanation for inordinate delay for more than 7 (seven)
months i.e. from 29.12.2023 till 17.07.2024 in filing the review petition for
examining the issues involved in the present case though the review applicant was
aware of the fact that order had been passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as
the Supreme Court.
So, considering the fact that the review applicant had already filed an
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same came to be dismissed and
also filed review application, that dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In these circumstances, the present application has been filed to
condone the delay of 635 (six hundred thirty-five) days without satisfactory
explanation for condoning the delay in filing the review application. On such
circumstances, this Court is not satisfied with the reasons/explanations for
entertaining the said application and there is no merits in the contention of the
learned Additional Advocate General for allowing the said application.
At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General made a
request before this Court that the final order passed in the writ petition will not be
a precedent in the future cases.
Page |8
In fine, the application, MC (Review.Pet.) No. 10 of 2024 is rejected
and consequently, the Review. Pet. bearing CIS Filing No.1439/2024 is closed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
