Court denies condonation of delay and review petition due to substantial unexplained delay.

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the review petition due to substantial and unexplained delay of 470 days in filing the review petition. The respondent's lack of specific details and explanations for the delays, coupled with concerns about the credibility of reasons provided, led to the Court's decision. Citing legal precedent, the Court emphasized the need for government bodies to have reasonable explanations for delays in legal proceedings and highlighted that condonation of delay should not be granted as a routine benefit.

---

---

Issues involved:
Delay in filing review petition

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in filing review petition

The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 470 days in filing the review petition for review of the order dated 16.04.2018. The respondent explained the delay by stating that after the receipt of the impugned order, they filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 29.03.2019. However, the respondent became aware of the dismissal only in May 2019. The file was then put up before the Commissioner for approval in June 2019, but due to the transfer of the concerned officer and loss of documents, the review petition was filed on 28.09.2019, more than two months after the final approval was granted.

Issue 2: Lack of specific details and explanations for delay

The Court noted that the respondent failed to provide specific dates and explanations for various delays in the process of filing the review petition. The lack of particulars regarding when the respondent became aware of the SLP dismissal, when the file was put up before the Commissioner, the transfer of the officer, and the loss and retrieval of documents raised concerns about the credibility of the reasons provided for the delay.

Legal Precedent:

Citing the case of Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr., the Court emphasized that government bodies must have reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays in legal proceedings. The Court highlighted that condonation of delay should not be granted as a routine benefit and that government departments have a special obligation to perform their duties diligently.

Decision:

Based on the substantial and unexplained delay in filing the review petition, the Court found no grounds to condone the delay and subsequently dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the review petition itself.

---