Karnataka High Court
Hussain vs Secretary on 3 September, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
REVIEW PETITION NO.1530/2011
A/w Misc. Cvl.104182/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. K. Hussain Peer,
S/o late Imam Sab
Aged about 55 years.
2. Sri. Fakrusab
S/o late Imam Sab,
Aged about 52 years.
3. Sri. Khuddusab
S/o late Imam sab
Aged about 49 years.
4. Sri. K. Ismail,
S/o late Imam Sab
Aged about 46 years.
5. Sri. K. Mehaboob,
S/o late Imam Sab
Aged about 43 years.
2
All are now residing at
Mariyammanahalli village
Tq. Hospet, Dist. Bellary.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. T. Basavanagoud, Adv) (common in Misc.Cvl.)
AND:
1. The Secretary to Government
Department of Commerce and Industries
Vikas Soudha, Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board, Plot No.33 A Lakkammanahali
Industrial Area, Dharwad 580 001.
... Respondents
(common in Misc.Cvl.)
(By Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA for R-1. R2 served)
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated
02/02/2011 passed in the WA.No.1747-1751/2009 on the file of
this Court.
Misc.Cvl.104182/2011 is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 42 days in filing
the above petition.
This Review Petition along with Misc.Cvl.104182/2011
coming on for orders this day, N.K.PATIL J., made the following:
3
ORDER
Misc.Cvl.104182/2011 is filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the review petition.
The cause for the delay in filing the review petition is explained at paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 14/04/2011. It is stated in the affidavit that his son Sri. Mahammad Rafiq came over to Dharwad on 24/02/2011 for securing certified copy of the order dated 02/02/2011. He contacted Mr. Kumar Patil, advocate to file an application for issue of the certified copy of the said order and the said advocate filed an application on 25/02/2011 and obtained certified copy of the order on 23/03/2011. The advocate did not inform them about obtaining the certified copy and on 08/04/2011 when they enquired with the said advocate, the advocate informed them to collect the order sheet. The very next day his son Sri. Mahamad Rafiq secured the order sheet and during his journey from Dharwad to Hospet by train, he lost the said order sheet. Again on 10/04/2011 they contacted Mr. T. Basavanagoud, advocate to 4 file an application. On 11/04/2011 an application was filed and on 12/04/2011 certified copy of the said order was obtained and filed a review petition on 15/04/2011. During this process, delay has been caused and the said delay is bonafide and not an intentional one.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application.
3. The delay of 42 days in filing the review petition has not been satisfactorily explained. Except making omnibus statements, no genuine and valid reasons are assingned and the manner in which the delay has been explained, cannot be accepted.
4. Hence, Misc.Cvl.104182/2011 is dismissed as misconceived. However, in the interest of justice, we have perused the order under review.
5
5. After perusal of the same, we do not find any error on the face of the same nor the petitioners have made out a case to consider their prayer sought in the review petition.
Accordingly, review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits.
Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Additional Government Advocate, is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kmv