Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/7115/2001 of BACHEY SINGH and ORS Vs STATE and ORS. on 30 December 2011
of 2010) (Delay Condonation Appl. No.2813 of 2010) In WPSS No.7115 of 2001 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Mr B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is 692 days delay in filing of the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(Review Appl. No.261 of 2010)
(Delay Condonation Appl. No.2813 of 2010)In WPSS No.7115 of 2001
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Mr B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
There is 692 days delay in filing of the review application. Ground taken in the delay condonation application is that the deponent of the affidavit took over as Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun in January, 2009. He came to know about the judgment dated 28.04.2008 passed in writ petition only when a notice in a contempt petition no.275 of 2009 was received by him on 10.11.2009. He contested the contempt proceedings. Thereafter, after sometime he realized that instead of filing counter affidavit in the contempt petition on merit, proper legal remedy should have been availed. It is mentioned in the delay condonation application that the concerned Engineering College, for which the land was acquired, failed to initiate immediate steps after receiving the copy of the order passed in the writ petition and on account of the failure on the part of the College to take necessary steps, Government also could not take any further action in the matter. It is further stated in the delay condonation application that predecessor of the deponent of the affidavit also did not take steps at his level for availing of the remedy under law for want of knowledge of the order passed in the writ petition. Subsequently, on being approached, Law Department of the Government vide its order dated 07.04.2010 granted permission for filing Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 passed in writ petition. After receiving the above permission, Deputy Secretary, Technical Education was sent to Nainital in connection with filing of Special Appeal. However, it was suggested by the learned Advocate General that instead of filing Special Appeal, approaching the writ court by way of a review petition would be proper and accordingly, review application was filed on 22.04.2010. In the delay condonation application the then Secretary, Technical Education has tried to transfer liability upon the concerned Engineering College and again upon his predecessor.
The ground that the concerned Engineering College did not take any step or predecessor of the deponent did not take any step for filing review application/Special Appeal, is no ground for condonation of delay. The fact is that the Standing Counsel was present in the Court when the writ petition was heard and was decided. Therefore, it will be assumed that the applicant-respondent had full knowledge of the decision on the date when the order was passed by this Court. It appears that after 692 days an attempt has been made by the applicant to frustrate the contempt proceedings. The grounds taken in the review application for condonation of delay are not good grounds. The delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the review application also stands dismissed.
Misc. application no.4494 of 2011 as well as application no.2814 of 2010 stand disposed of.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 30.12.2011