1. Review petition filed with significant delay following the dismissal of a special leave petition that was also filed with inordinate delay. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 956
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : S.B.Majmudar
T.B.Suryawanshi
Versus
Government Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 1572 of 1998
Date of Decision : 9/8/98
A review petition or special leave petition filed with inordinate and unexplained delay, especially when the original proceedings were also barred by laches, is liable to be dismissed, as general principles of justice cannot override such procedural defaults.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Delay - Filing of a review petition with an unexplained delay is a sufficient ground for its dismissal. (Para 1)
(B) Special Leave Petition - Laches - Where a special leave petition is filed with inordinate delay and the petitioner failed to approach the High Court in a timely manner, the petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by time and laches. (Para 2)
(C) Jurisdiction - Interest of Justice - A general principle that a court may interfere in the interest of justice cannot be invoked to override the effect of inordinate and unexplained delays in filing petitions when no patent error in the original order is demonstrated. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A review petition was filed with a delay of 345 days. The underlying special leave petition had been filed with a delay of 1414 days, and the original petition before the High Court was also barred by time and laches.
Findings of Court:
The delay in filing the review petition was not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the original special leave petition and the High Court petition were both filed after inordinate delays without proper explanation, and no patent error was demonstrated to support the review.
Issues: Whether a review petition can be maintained despite an unexplained delay and whether the court's jurisdiction to interfere in the interest of justice applies to cases of extreme laches.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition is liable to be dismissed if there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in filing, and such delay cannot be cured by citing general principles of justice when no patent error in the original order is demonstrated.
Result: Review petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of unexplained delay as well as on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that the court has jurisdiction to interfere in the interest of justice based on a High Court precedent. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that the delays in filing the review petition and the special leave petition were unexplained and the High Court petition was barred by laches. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. A review petition may be dismissed for unexplained delay or if no patent error is demonstrated in the order sought to be reviewed. (Para 1 , 3 )
5. Review petition dismissed on the grounds of unexplained delay and on merits. (Para 3 )
6. Can a review petition be dismissed solely on the ground of unexplained delay?
Yes, a review petition may be dismissed if the delay in filing it is not satisfactorily explained. (Para 1 )
7. What is the requirement for a review petition to succeed on merits?
To succeed on merits, the petitioner must demonstrate an error, specifically a patent error, in the order sought to be reviewed. (Para 3 )
8. Does the principle of interfering in the interest of justice override inordinate and unexplained procedural delays?
Not necessarily; the court may find that such principles are of no avail when the petition is barred by time, laches, and unexplained inordinate delay. (Para 2 , 3 )
(1) DELAY of 345 days in filing the review petition is not satisfactorily explained. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, as the review petition is moved by the petitioner-in-person we have considered the review petition on merits also.
(2) THE order sought to be reviewed clearly indicates that even the special leave petition filed before this Court was out of time by 1414 days, i.e., filed after about four years and no proper explanation was given for such inordinate delay. Even that apart the petitioner did not move the High Court in time and the High Court was, therefore, also required to dismiss the petition as barred by time and laches. The special leave petition, was therefore, dismissed.
(3) UNDER these circumstances no error, much less any patent error, can be demonstrated in support of the review petition. The only ground relied upon is that there is a decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that in an appropriate case the court has jurisdiction to interfere in the interest of justice. The said decision on the facts of the present case can be of no avail to the petitioner. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of unexplained delay as well as on merits.
