Court Rejects State's 1,679-Day Delay in Review Petition: Upholding Legal Integrity.
14 October 2024
Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law
In a significant ruling, the court has dismissed the Review Petition (Stamp) No. 19950 of 2022 filed by the State, along with several interim applications, primarily due to an inordinate delay of 1,679 days—approximately four years and seven months—without sufficient justification.
The Review Petition sought to challenge a judgment and order from November 15, 2017, in Writ Petition No. 11997 of 2016. The State's application for condonation of this extensive delay was the first point of consideration, as all subsequent applications were contingent on this decision.
Key Issues Raised:
Grounds for Condonation: The State argued that the delay was attributable to the overruling of a previous landmark judgment by the Supreme Court, specifically Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020). Additionally, it cited procedural delays attributed to various government departments and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters.
Opposition's Argument: Counsel for the original petitioners countered that the State did not demonstrate any compelling reasons for such an extensive delay. They emphasized that the petitioners should not be disadvantaged due to the State's lack of diligence.
Court’s Findings:
Upon reviewing the State's application, the court concluded that no sufficient cause had been shown for the lengthy delay. It noted that there was a complete lack of explanation for the period between December 15, 2017, and March 15, 2020, prior to the pandemic's onset. The court emphasized that the extensions granted during the pandemic applied only to delays occurring within that specific timeframe.
The court also referenced previous Supreme Court rulings, underscoring the principle that a party cannot benefit from its own inaction or delayed responses. The judges reiterated that allowing the review based on a subsequent change in law would set a concerning precedent, potentially leading to endless litigations each time a law is reinterpreted.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the State's application for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the reasons provided were not convincing. Even if the delay had been condoned, the review petition itself would still have been rejected on its merits due to the explicit prohibition under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the grounds for review based on changes in law.
Moreover, several interim applications seeking intervention in the review were also dismissed, reinforcing the judgment's finality. The decision highlighted the importance of diligence in legal proceedings, particularly for public entities, asserting that the law applies equally to all parties involved.
In summary, the dismissal of the Review Petition and associated applications reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity and discouraging unnecessary delays in the legal process.