ORDER :

1. Though the matter is listed for orders on Interloculatory applications, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 8.01.2016 passed on IA-2/2015 in W.P.No. 17548/2014 and to restore the report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 21.02.2015.

3. The 3rd respondent herein was the petitioner in WP.No.17548/2014 and said writ petition came to be disposed of on 13.7.2015. On an application filed by 3rd Respondent seeking clarification of said order vide IA-2/2015 this court by order dated 8.01.2016 had clarified as under:

“This application is filed for clarification of the order dt. 13-07-2015.

This Court after hearing the parties, by a detailed order allowed the writ petition and quashed the report submitted by the Lokayukta under Sec. 12(1) and 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokyukta Act, 1984. Further it was made clear, subsequent notices issued to the petitioner by the authorities, on the basis of the said report are also quashed. Now the grievance is, in the original writ petition filed, the relief sought for was, quashing of the report under Sec.12(3) of the Act.

It is not in dispute, though there was an order of stay granted by this Court, the Government sought a report from the Lokayukta under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Act on 10-01-2014. in consequence thereof, the Lokayukta submitted a report dt. 21-02-2015 reiterating that the orders passed by the lokyukta earlier are correct. After considering the case on merit, in para 30 of our judgment, we have categorically stated that the proceedings before the Lokayukata, the orders passed and subsequent action purported to have been taken by the authorities in pursuance of the report under Sec. 12(3) of the Act are without jurisdiction, null and void and therefore, they are all hereby quashed. In the operative portion of the order, we have said, the report under Sec. 12(1) and 12 (3) of the Act and subsequent notices issued to the petitioner by the authorities are all quashed. We have omitted to mention that the communication addressed by the Government to the Lokayukta under Sec.7(2)(a) on 10-01-2014 and the report of the Lokyukta dt. 21-02-2015 are not quashed expressly. But as could be seen there from, we have stated above, the communication dated 10.01.2014 and the report dated 21.02.2015 also stands quashed. In the course of our judgment, we have clearly stated, the complaint itself was not maintainable and all the proceedings initiated in pursuance of such a complaint are all void ab initio.

With this clarification, I.A. is closed.”

4. Petitioner has filed the present review petition on 13.03.2018 seeking review of above order dated 8.01.2016 passed on IA-2/2015 in W.P.No.17548/2104. On certain office objections having been raised including as regards delay in filing, IA-1/2019 came to be filed on 30.01.2019 seeking condonation of delay of 754 days in filing of the review petition. Subsequent thereto notice came to be ordered and all of the respondents have entered appearance. 3rd respondent has filed objections to IA-1/2019 viz., for condonation of delay.

5. As noticed above, there is a delay in filing. Condonation of delay application came to be filed belatedly on 30.01.2019. In the affidavit filed in support of said application, only ground urged is that report under Section 7(2) of the Act had not been placed before this Court in W.P.No.17548/2017, hence, he had applied for grant of copy of the same on 3.10.2015 which was not furnished to him. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner for Information and Communication on 25.06.2016, pursuant to which copy of the report was furnished to him on 4.01.2017.

6. Petitioner has also stated that he came to know of the order of this Court dated 8.01.2016 in the second week of August 2017 and hence, he approached his counsel in the second week of September 2017, obtained certified copy of the