Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
State of Manipur
Vs.
Chingsubam Rajeshwor Singh
MC (Rev. Pet.) No. 18 of 2011
Decided On: 08.10.2012
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Contempt Case - Condoning delay - Education Department School Section – Petition deciding question arises in this misc application as to whether there is sufficient cause for condoning delay of 1637 days or/reasons for condonation of delay are plausible and there was no negligence on part of Applicant for delay of days a brief reference to factual background would suffice - judgment and order of this court passed in WP for which the accompanying review petition is filed along with this misc application for condonation of delay of days was passed in presence of learned Government Advocate appearing for present petitioner and as such judgment and order was not an ex-parte judgment and order – Held, After consideration of above decisions of Apex Court more particularly in case and Postmaster General & Orss case this court is of considered view that Government Departments require to remember that Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with due diligence and commitment and also that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be treated as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments - For reasons discussed in above court is constrained to observe that filing this application for condonation of delay of days on cryptic and vague reasons is an abuse of process of court for this application for condonation of delay is dismissed with cost of which is to be paid by who sworn affidavit in support of present misc application - Petition dismissed
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the Applicant and also Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. By this application, the Applicant is praying for condoning delay of 1637 days in filing the accompanying review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 28.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 696 of 2006.
2. For deciding the question arises in this misc application as to whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1637 days or/reasons for condonation of delay are plausible and there was no negligence on the part of the Applicant for the delay of 1637 days, a brief reference to the factual background would suffice:
The judgment and order of this court dated 28.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 696 of 2006 for which the accompanying review petition is filed along with this misc application for condonation of delay of 1637 days was passed in the presence of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the present petitioner and as such, the judgment and order dated 28.02.2007 was not an ex-parte judgment and order.
3. The reasons for condonation of delay of 1637 days, supported by an affidavit sworn by one Dr. J. Suresh Babu, Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, excluding all the grounds taken for review which would be required to be considered at the time of hearing of the review petition, are quoted hereunder:
1. That by the instant application, the Applicant prays for condoning a delay of 1637 days in filing the review petition against the order dated 28.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 696 of 2006
2. That the Respondent filed WP (C) No. 696 of 2006 during the month of July, 2006. After issuance of notice, the Addl. Government Advocate (HC) vide letter dated 11.09.2006 requested the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur to furnish para-wise comment along with relevant records for defending the case. The Letter was received by the Office of the Commissioner Education (S), Government of Manipur on 15.09.2006.
3. That on receipt of the letter dated 11.09.2006, the Under Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur vide letter dated 18.11.2006 directed the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur for furnishing the Para-wise Comment/briefs of the case to the Addl. Government Advocate (HC).
4. That however no information was furnished to the Secretariat, Education Department School Section, Government of Manipur in respect of the case. Accordingly, vide a subsequent letter dated 27.09.2009, the Deputy Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur directed the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur to submit the details of the case including the explanation for issuing the order dated 25.04.2005 and 21.05.2004 which are the orders for granting retrospective regularization to the Respondent.
5. That in the meantime on 10.01.2011 the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur received a Notice/Summons dated 05.01.2011 in Contempt Case (C) No. 135 of 2010 (Ref: WP (C) No. 696 of 2006) directing the then Commissioner, Education (S), Government to appear before the Court on 19.01.2011.
6. That it is submitted that the Officer of the Commissioner. Education (S). Government of Manipur came to know the existence of the order dated 28.02.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 696 of 2006 only on 10.01.2011.
** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** **
15. That it is submitted that the respondent obtained the said judgment and order dated 28.02.2007 on the basis of the said fake & fabricated letter dated 30.04.2005. In the circumstances and as advice by the Law Department, Government of Manipur including the Learned Advocate General, Manipur, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs approved the decision for filing a review petition as proposed by the Department of Education (S). Government of Manipur on 05.10.2011.
16. That the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur ther
SupremeToday
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
