The court ruled that a party cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing a review petition based on subsequent overruling of a prior decision, as it violates the principles of limitation and sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak J) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 15 November 2017 in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2016. Interim Application No.3426 of 2023 seeks condonation of delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months, in instituting the above Review Petition.

3. Interim Application No.13396 of 2024 in Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 is filed by one Natha Shamrao Deshmukh (Kamble) seeking intervention in the Review Petition.

4. Interim Application No.1675 of 2024 is instituted by one William Anton D’souza, again seeking intervention in the above Review Petition.

5. Interim Application No.1674 of 2024 is instituted by Mr Ronny Jocky D’souza and another, again seeking impleadment in the above Review Petition.

6. Until the delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition by the State Government is condoned, there is no question of considering Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022 and the other Interim Applications seeking intervention therein. Accordingly, it is proposed first to consider Interim Application No.3426 of 2023, by which the State seeks condonation of delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months, in instituting Review Petition (Stamp) No.19950 of 2022.

7. The State’s Application for condonation of delay firstly states that the order dated 15 November 2017, of which review is applied, was passed by this Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Application states that this decision was “overruled” by the Full Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 decided on 6 March 2020. Therefore, it is suggested that the delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months in instituting the Review Petition, be condoned.

8. Secondly, the State’s Application for condonation of delay refers to a Notification dated 23 June 2020 by which a direction was issued to all Government departments to file Review Petitions in cases where Petitions were allowed by following the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Harakchand Solanki (supra). The Application states that no Review Petition could be filed in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. There is a reference to heavy rainfall in August 2021 in Kolhapur District and the Deputy Collector being busy with disaster management issues.

9. The State’s Application for condonation of delay urges the exclusion of the period between 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 by relying upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation on account of the Covid-19 pandemic.

10. Finally, paragraph 6 of the State’s Application for condonation of delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months, states, “The delay has mainly caused due to involvement of different departments of the State namely, Land Acquisition Office, District Collector and Revenue and Forest Department. The delay in filing the Review Petition is caused due to administrative procedure of the State which cannot be dispensed with.”

11. Learned AGP argued that the issue of condonation of delay must be construed liberally when the State is seeking condonation. He submitted that the reasons in the Application seeking condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause, and, therefore, the delay may be condoned.

12. Learned counsel for the original Petitioners argued that no sufficient cause is shown to explain the inordinate delay of 1679 days, i.e. 4 years and 7 months. He submitted that the State cannot be given any special treatment, and the Application for condonation of delay, in this case, was filed very casually. He submitted that the State cannot get the benefit of the orders made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic because the judgment and order dated 15 November 2017 was made almost three years before the onset of the C