Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asha Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ; 2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(112) CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
Date of Decision : 03.04.2024
Asha Sharma
...Non-applicant/petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Applicants/respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the applicants-respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
CM-5214-CWP-2024 in/and RA-CW-106-2024
1. The present review application has been filed alongwith the
application for condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the present
review application.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants-respondents submits that
the delay in filing the review application is neither intentional nor willful
but due to the administrative and procedural reason.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ; 2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants-respondents
and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
4. Before proceeding further, the relevant reasons given for the
condonation of delay in the application needs to be reproduced for the
ready reference, which is as under :-
"3. That delay in the matter has occurred due to
procedural and administrative reasons; same is neither
intentional nor willful but bonafide. There is a delay of 440
days in the filing of the present Review Application."
5. Not even a single reason has been given by the applicants-
respondents as to on what administrative reasons or procedural
difficulties, a delay of 440 days has occurred. It may be noticed that the
order passed by this Court is dated 08.12.2022 and the opinion was given
on 21.02.2023 to file a review. Despite the said fact, the review has been
filed only on 13.03.2024. Nothing has come on record as to why more
than one year was taken by the respondents to file the review petition.
6. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 titled as
Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media
India Ltd. and another, decided on 24.02.2012, each day's delay is to be
explained so as to satisfy the Court that the delay caused was beyond the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ; 2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
control of the applicants-respondents. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are as under:-
"2. The following issues arise for consideration:
a) Whether the Office of the Chief Post Master
General has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay
of 427 days in filing SLPs before this Court. Depending on
the outcome of the above issue, other issues to be considered
are:
b) Whether the impugned advertisement inserted in the
Reader's Digest issue of December, 2005 is in conformity
with the requirement of law.
c) Whether the Department has made out a case for
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to
reopen concurrent findings of fact rendered by the High
Court.
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for
the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to
accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending
for several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red-tape in the process. The Government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that
they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ; 2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
there was no proper explanation offered by the Department
for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according
to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a
huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay.
14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to
go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of
law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are
dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs."
7. In the present case, the norms fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India is to be taken into account for condonation of delay even
qua the application filed by the Government, has not been fulfilled by the
applicants-respondents. Not even a single reason has been given to show
that the delay, which has occurred, was beyond the control of the
applicants-respondents and the same was bonafide or for any
administrative action. Nothing has come on record that what
administrative action was needed to file the review after the opinion was
granted in February, 2023, whereas the actual review petition was filed
even after 13 months of the said opinion.
8. No ground is made out for any condonation of delay as being
prayed in the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5214-CWP-2024;
CM-5213-CWP-2024 ;
CM-5215-CWP-2024 ; 2024:PHHC:044380
CM-5216-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-106-2024 in
CWP-23750-2015
9. Consequently, the review application as well as
miscellaneous applications are also dismissed.
April 3rd, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
