WPMS/509/2005 of SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA Vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL and ORS on 31 December 2008

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No. 8847 of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 509 of 2005 (M/S)

Surveryor General of India.

……… Petitioner

Versus

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others. …… Respondents Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

Hon’ble V. K. Gupta, C.J.

This is an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Restoration Application No. 1479 of 2008. Through the medium of Restoration Application No. 1479 of 2008, the writ petitioner/ applicant seeks the recalling of the order dated 23[rd] July, 2008. and for restoration of the Writ Petition, which was dismissed vide the said order. The Restoration Application has been filed on 23[rd] December, 2008 and, because it is time barred, is accompanied by an Application for condonation of delay being CLMA No. 8847 of 2008. Both the Applications are supported by the affidavits of Maj. Gen. V.P. Srivastava, Director in the Survey of India, Dehradun.

In para 5 of the affidavit accompanying the Delay Condonation Application, the petitioner/ applicant has itself stated and admitted that the certified copy of the order dated 23[rd] July 2008 was received by it on 19[th] November, 2008. Para 6 of the affidavit is relevant, which I reproduce herein below:

“6. That the restoration application alongwith delay condonation application was prepared and sent to the Surveyor General of India Dehradun for signature.”

When was the Restoration Application prepared, when was the Delay Condonation Application prepared, when were these signed by the Surveyor General of India, are facts which have not at all been stated in the affidavits or in the Applications. The fact remains that no explanation has been given nor is any forthcoming as to why despite obtaining he certified copy of the order on 19[th] November, 2008, it took the applicant more then 30 days to file the Applications in the Court despite the fact that the applicant’s office as well as the deponent’s office is in Dehradun. In the absence of any explanation, I am left with no option but to dismiss the Delay Condonation Application because the applicant has not explained the delay by offering a sufficient cause warranting its condonation.

The application accordingly is dismissed.

(V. K. Gupta, C.J.) 31.12.2008

G