Back
KAMAL KHATA, M. S. SONAK
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Rajagonda Bhimgonda Patil – Respondent
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 co
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 suffici....
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
“unavoidable” and “unspoken” circumstances cannot be taken shelter of to claim condonation of delay in approaching the Courts. In fact the course adopted by the State in preferring the review petitio....
Government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays in legal filings, emphasizing diligence in legal proceedings.
Government departments must provide reasonable explanations for delays in filing petitions; absence of sufficient cause results in dismissal of applications for condonation.
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
The court ruled that local self-governments must adhere to limitation laws with no special exemptions and must provide adequate justification for any delay in filing petitions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay, while also emphasizing t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
