(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 pet