Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Bhupendra Singh Tarad on 21 October, 2019
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 25/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ramgopal Verma
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 27/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Singh Dulawat
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 29/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Samayojit Shiksha Karmi Welfare Society
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 31/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. Samayojit Shiksha Karmi Welfare Society
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 33/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shambhoo Singh Jhala
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 44/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhupendra Singh Tarad
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:59:07 PM)
(2 of 4) [WRW-25/2019]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore.
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.M. Lodha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. V.D. Dadhich.
Dr. Nupur Bhati.
Mr. Vivek Shrimali.
Mr. Deepak Soni.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 21/10/2019 These review petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan reported to be barred by limitation are accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that in the first instance against the order under review, Special Leave Petition was filed by the State before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 13.09.2018. Thereafter, Additional Advocate General opined that review petitions should be filed in the matter before the Division Bench of this Court. The opinion of the Senior Advocate was also sought in this regard, which was received on 16.01.2019 and thereafter decision was taken by the Pre-Litigation Committee of the State to file the review petitions and, accordingly, the review petitions were filed on 27.02.2019.
It is submitted that delay in filing the review petitions is not deliberate; rather on account of peculiar issue involved in the petition, the time was spent in seeking opinion from the Additional Advocate General and the Senior Advocate, and thereafter in taking decision as to whether review petitions should be filed in the matter or not.
(Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:59:07 PM)
(3 of 4) [WRW-25/2019] Learned Additional Advocate General submits that taking into consideration the issue raised in the review petition, where by order under review, the Division Bench has declared the provisions of Section 5 (ix) of the Rules of 2010 to be ultra vires, the validity whereof was already upheld by yet another Division Bench (At Jaipur Bench) vide decision dated 25.01.2018 rendered in DBCWP No.61/2013- Prem Prakash Purohit & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the review petitions need to be heard on merits.
On the other hand, Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents/employees submits that no reasons whatsoever have been set-out in the applications as to why the review petitions were not filed with utmost expedition. It is submitted that the SLP was rejected on 13.09.2018 and thereafter there is no plausible explanation as to why the review petitions were not filed for a period of about five months. It is submitted that even after opinion being given by the AAG, the review petitions are filed after ten weeks. Learned counsel submitted that apparently the matter was dealt with by the State authorities in most casual manner and, therefore, no indulgence should be granted to them so as to condone the inordinate delay of more than 11 months in filing the review petitions.
Mr. Vivek Shrimali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that on two occasions applications preferred by the respondents/employees for extension of time to deposit the amount of provident fund, already drawn by them, were allowed by this Court in the presence of counsel for the State.
At this stage, Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Sr. Advocate submitted that even in some of cases, the part of order under (Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:59:07 PM) (4 of 4) [WRW-25/2019] review stands complied with, inasmuch as amount have been deposited by the employees and the cheques tendered by them, have been encashed by the State.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is true that the inordinate delay in filing the review petitions is not fully explained by the State authorities and the reasons assigned are not convincing, but having regard to the issue raised in the review petition, noticed by us while passing the order dated 25.04.2019 issuing notices to the respondents, in the interest of justice, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the review petitions.
Accordingly, applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay preferred by the review-petitioners are allowed. Delay in filing the review petitions is condoned.
Let the review petitions be listed for orders on 18.11.2019.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
6 to 11-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:59:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)