Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1820
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal, A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Management, National Seeds Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
Y. Malegowda and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 7132-36 of 2005 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 11546-50 of 2004)
Decided On : 28-11-2005
The delay in filing a review application should be condoned based on the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Delay - Review Application - The court set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for review on the ground of delay, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the review applications on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought review of an order by the High Court, which dismissed the application on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the review application should have been condoned and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the review applications on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court should have dismissed the appellant's application for review of its order on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the circumstances of the case, the delay should have been condoned, and the High Court should have considered the appellant's submission explaining the delay.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the review applications on merits.
ORDER :
Ruma Pal, A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Leave granted.
2. The question which arises in this case is: whether the High Court should have dismissed the appellant's application for review of its order dated 9-4-2001 on the ground of delay?
3. The proceedings commenced with a scheme formulated by the appellant for regularisation of daily workers. The respondents are daily workers. Claiming benefits under the scheme, the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court for regularisation of their services. The writ petitions were dismissed. The respondents preferred writ appeals. The appeals were allowed by the Division Bench to the extent that the appellant was directed to consider the case of the respondents for regularisation of their services subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
4. The appellant sought to prefer special leave petitions from the order of the Division Bench. Those petitions were dismissed on 7-12-2001. On 28-1-2002, the appellant made the application for review of the order dated 9-4-2001. The High Court dismissed the application only on the ground that there was a delay of 268 days in filing the same. The High Court did not give any reason for rejecting the appellant's submission explaining the delay that the appellant had been pursuing its remedy by way of special leave petitions.
5. In our view, in the circumstances of the case, the delay should have been condoned. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for disposal of the review applications on merits. It is recorded that as far as Respondent 1 is concerned, he has accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, his case need not be considered in the review application.
6. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
