2018 (12) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate a/w Ms. Rubal Bansal i/by Ruturaj Gurjar for the Petitioner Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Respondents   P.C.: 1. Heard. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. The petitions arise in common background. We may refer to the facts from Writ Petition No. 1685 of 2018. 3. The petitioner has challeng....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de such application and then to decide the petition on merits if the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a separate application before the Commissioner and tried to explain the delay in the Revision Petitions. The Commissioner rejected such applications as noted above by the impugned order.   5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s back injury. 6. It is well settled through serious of judgments of the Supreme Court that when the issues of technical and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the course of substantial justice would normally prevail. In the present case, when the delay was even otherwise not inordinate and was explained in the above terms, the Commissioner should have condoned the same. In the ....