Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ut Of J&K And Anr vs Mukesh Kumar on 22 November, 2021
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Sr. No. 23
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 29/2020
CM No. 1093/2020
UT of J&K and Anr. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.
Vs
Mukesh Kumar ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Nayyar, Advocate.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD AKRAM CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
22.11.2021 (OPEN COURT) Per: Thakur-J
01. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019, whereby the learned Single Bench has declined to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2016. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts: -
02. The writ petition bearing No. SWP No. 693/2005 filed by the petitioner, respondent herein, came to be decided by virtue of judgment and order dated 21.07.2016. A Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 150/2017, was preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order. During the course of arguments before the Division Bench, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants made a statement that one of the 2 LPA No. 29/2020 grounds raised before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was not considered in view of the Apex Court judgment in "State of Maharashtra Versus Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.," reported in 1982 (2) SCC 463. On the said submission having been made, the Division Bench granted liberty to the appellants to file an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 21.07.2016. The appellants, thereafter, preferred a Review Petition before the Writ Court on 07.05.2018, which was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.
03. The learned Single Bench by virtue of order impugned dated 17.09.2019, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the applicants had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay from 08.09.2017 to 06.05.2018. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is untenable in law and that sufficient explanation was given in the application which would justify condonation of delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also urged that the applicants were not to explain each and every day's delay and that the issue of condonation of delay has to be considered as a whole considering the fact that the appellants herein had availed the remedy of Letters Patent Appeal before the LPA Bench well within the time.
04. We have also gone through the application filed by the appellants before the learned Single Bench. In fact, we find that there has been no explanation with regard to the delay which was occasioned between the actual filing of the Review Petition on 07.05.2018, and the receipt of the formal sanction order dated 03.01.2018, granting sanction for filing the Review Petition.
05. While it may not be necessary for appellants to explain each and every day's delay, yet we find no explanation at all as to what the appellants 3 LPA No. 29/2020 herein were doing between the date of receipt of sanction order on 03.01.2018 and the actual filing of the Review Petition on 07.05.2018. Not only this, we are of the opinion that filing a review was an independent remedy which was available to the appellants, which ought to have been filed within the prescribed period after the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019 was rendered by the learned Single Bench. For filing a Review Petition, no special permission or sanction or direction was required or necessary from the Division Bench. In case the applicants/appellants were of the opinion that an issue which has been raised, had not been considered by the Writ Court, certainly a Review Petition could have been filed which was not done within the time prescribed. Reliance can be placed on judgment of Apex Court passed in "Post Master General and others Vs Living Media India Limited & another" reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein in paragraph 29 held as under: -
"29. 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."
06. In our opinion, in fact, filing of the Review Petition came as an afterthought and despite the liberty granted by a Co-ordinate Bench, the filing of the Review Petition was unduly delayed. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the 4 LPA No. 29/2020 learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 21.07.2016, cannot be interfered with.
07. The present appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Mohd Akram Chowdhary) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
22.11.2021
Vishal