Tripura High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 23 February, 2022
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A.01 of 2019 [arising from Review Pet.No.64 of 2019
&
I.A.01 of 2019 [arising from Review Pet.No.65 of 2019
in I.A.01 of 2019 [arising from Review Pet.No.64 of 2019
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
..........Applicant(s)
Vs
The State of Tripura and Others
..........Respondent(s)
in I.A.01 of 2019 [arising from Review Pet.No.65 of 2019] Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
..........Applicant(s)
Vs
The State of Tripura and Others
..........Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Ms. P. Dhar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
23/02/2022
Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the remaining respondents.
Page 2 of 5
2. Both the applications from two different review petitions as indicated are combined for disposal by a common order inasmuch as those are circumstanced in the common background facts and law.
3. By means of this application, the applicant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited has urged this court for condoning the delay of 1074 days in preferring the review petitions against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 passed in Case No.RSA 59 of 2012 and RSA 61 of 2012 by this court. It appears that in order to explain the said inordinate delay, the applicant has stated in several paragraphs that it was not within the knowledge of the applicant that the said judgment and order was passed on 23.09.2016 by this court. For purpose of reference, it may be mentioned that in paragraph-2 of the said application, it has been stated that Indian Oil Corporation Limited represented by its Sales Manager & State Level Coordinator, Kunjaban, IOC Depot, P.O.-Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin- 799001, District-West Tripura [the respondent No.12] was not served any notice of the said appeals and as such, the applicant was not aware of the said second appeals preferred by the state-respondents.
3. Thereafter, in paragraph-3 of the applications for condonation of the delay, it has been asserted that the judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 has been delivered by this court without hearing the said respondent, the applicant herein and thus, the applicant has been gravely prejudiced. In paragraph-4 the said application, it has been asserted as under :
"4. That, the Petitioner most respectfully begs to submit that on 18.04.2018 the Advocate for the State Respondents herein submitted the judgment of RSA 61 of 2012 and RSA 59 of 2012 during the hearing of Writ Appeal No.1 of 2016 and Writ Appeal No.7 of 2016, and only thereafter the Petitioner on information through their Page 3 of 5 Learned Counsel came into the knowledge of the Second Appeal i.e. Case No.RSA 61 of 2012 filed by the Respondents against the Petitioner Company."
4. Some explanation has been given that 595 days were waste for lack of knowledge and remaining 509 days have been consumed for pursuing the settlement process. This court, thus, took an exercise for scrutiny of the records wherefrom it appeared that the statement that the applicant did not have any knowledge is completely unfounded inasmuch as the applicant, the respondent No.7 was represented by Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel [as he then was]. The orders for RSA 61 of 2012 was being recorded in RSA 59 of 2012 as those second appeals were being heard analogously and the orders in RSA 61 of 2012 was only indicative. For purpose of reference, the order dated 01.09.2016 may be reproduced :
"As prayed for Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent No.12, list this appeal on 6th September, 2016 along with RSA No.61 of 2012 for hearing.
Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appears for the appellants whereas Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.2, 4, 9, 10 & 11."
5. In RSA 61 of 2012, a separate order was passed on 01.09.2016 which reads as follows :
"In view of the order passed today in RSA No.59 of 2012, list this appeal on 6th September, 2016 for hearing.
Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appears for the appellants whereas Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.2, 4, 9, 10 & 11."
6. That apart, several public notices were published in the form of substituted service. On discovery of those facts from the records, it has been reflected in the order dated 09.02.2022 passed in these application. Then, Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel has urged for accommodation for taking instruction from the respondent No.12. On that very date itself, Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. Page 4 of 5 appearing for the state-respondents had submitted that the plea of absence of service is without substance inasmuch as the respondent No.12 was represented after delivery of the notice.
Be that as it may, accommodation was made for Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel for obtaining instruction by the order dated 09.02.2022 and later on, on 15.02.2022.
7. Today, when the matter was taken up, Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel has submitted in all her fairness that the respondent No.12 will not contest the facts as brought in the judicial records. When this court asked Ms. Dhar, learned counsel whether this court can record that the condonation plea is being abandoned by the applicant, Ms. Dhar, learned counsel has submitted that the effect of abandonment will destroy the solitary plea that has been raised in this application that for lack of knowledge, the review petition could not be filed in time.
8. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that this is a constructed plea and has been made so deliberately. This court may impose exemplary cost. That apart, Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the law as recently enunciated by the apex Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao versus Reddy Sridevi & Ors. [judgment dated 16.12.2021 delivered in Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021] is quite rigid inasmuch in absence of satisfactory explanation, huge delay cannot be condoned. It has been observed having referred to Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448 that the court cannot enquire Page 5 of 5 into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are "vigilant and do not slumber over their rights".
9. According to Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., the applicant, the respondent No.12 in the second appeal has deliberately suppressed the material fact to take undue advantage and as such, these applications should be thrown out of consideration.
10. In the emerged circumstances, this court is of the view that the applicant was not vigilant in participating in the hearing and as such, their plea of lack of knowledge falls apart. The lack of knowledge is the main shaft of their explanation. Hence, there remains nothing to be appreciated to find out the sufficient cause and hence, these applications are dismissed.
JUDGE Sabyasachi B