Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar vs Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd And Ors on 8 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047436
CM-3541-C-2024
CM-3539-C-2024
CM-3540-C-2024
CM-3542-C-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:047436
RA-RS-13-2024 in
RSA-1362-2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(108) CM-3541-C-2024
CM-3539-C-2024
CM-3540-C-2024
CM-3542-C-2024 in
RA-RS-13-2024 in
RSA-1362-2021
Date of Decision : 08.04.2024
Shiv Kumar ..Non-applicant/petitioner
Versus
Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. and others
..Applicants/respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, for the applicant-respondents.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-3541-C-2024 in/and RA-RS-13-2024
1. The present review application has been filed
for review of the order dated 29.04.2023 alongwith the application for
condonation of delay of 196 days in filing the present review application.
2. Even as per the application seeking condonation of delay, the
opinion was given by the Office of Advocate General on 19.06.2023 for
filing the review but still the same has only been filed in December 2023.
The limitation to file the review is 30 days but the respondents took more
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047436
CM-3541-C-2024
CM-3539-C-2024
CM-3540-C-2024
CM-3542-C-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:047436
RA-RS-13-2024 in
RSA-1362-2021
than six months even after the opinion was given by the Office of
Advocate Geeneral to file the review. Those six months have not been
explained by the respondents in the affidavit.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-respondents
and have gone through the record with her able assistance.
4. 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
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.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047436
CM-3541-C-2024
CM-3539-C-2024
CM-3540-C-2024
CM-3542-C-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:047436
RA-RS-13-2024 in
RSA-1362-2021
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
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."
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where not
even a single reason has been given to explain six months delay even
after grant of approval to file a review, no ground is made out for any
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047436
CM-3541-C-2024
CM-3539-C-2024
CM-3540-C-2024
CM-3542-C-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:047436
RA-RS-13-2024 in
RSA-1362-2021
condonation of delay as being prayed in the present application and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
6. Consequently, the review application as well as other
miscellaneous applications are also dismissed.
April 08, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
