This is an application for review of judgment passed on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Two issues have been placed for consideration. First is regarding the maintainability of the application for review, the objection being that the same is out of time and the provision invoked is not the appropriate one. The second is as to the merits of the review petition on the basis of the contentions of the rival parties.

2. I shall first deal with the question of maintainability. The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. In Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1092) rendered after the insertion of the Explanation to Section 141 CPC, by the amendment of 1976, it has been held that when the Constitution has vested extraordinary power in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, the procedures for exercising such power and jurisdiction have to be traced and found in those provisions themselves. After noticing that no useful purpose will be served by limiting the power of the High Court by the procedural provisions prescribed in CPC, it was held that the provisions and procedures prescribed under CPC can be taken as guide on many questions, while exercising power in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it has to be understood that while the principles underlining the CPC can be taken as guiding beacons in the exercise of authority under Articles 226 and 227 as part of the justice delivery system, the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not confined or controlled by the provisions of the CPC. The power to review its judgments, orders or directions issued under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part and parcel of the constitutional powers of the High Court, referable to those articles and is available under those constitutional provisions themselves and would not be regulated by the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, an application for review of a judgment, writ, direction or order issued in writ jurisdiction would not stand regulated by the provisions relating to review in the CPC.

3. In Divisional Forest Officer vs. Cherian (1982 K.L.T. 682) this Court laid down that the High Court can review an order and correct an error committed by it to meet the ends of justice. This is available within the wide sweep of the High Courts powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Jokers 70 mm. Movie House vs. Kerala State Electricity Board (1984 K.L.T. 529), it has been clearly noticed that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ court has the power to correct errors and omissions rendered in proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to writ proceedings. However, when a person does not approach the court within a reasonable framework of time, he is duty bound to disclose and explain to the satisfaction of the Court, as to why he had not approached earlier. This is because, delay itself is a ground on which the exercise of discretion by the writ court would depend, be it exercising authority for the first time on a particular case, or on an application for review of an order already rendered. The writ court need not necessarily come to the aid of the litigant. While an application to condone the delay and an application for review within the format of the provisions of the CPC and the Limitation Act may not be necessary, an application for review of an order passed under Articles 226 or 227 filed after a long delay of time, say more than the normal period fixed for similar purposes by the Limitation Act, it is not only appropriate, but necessary, that reasons are disclosed, establishing sufficient cause for the delay. In the normal course, a writ petition has to be filed within a period of 90 days. It is appropriate that an application for review of an order passed in a writ proceedings has to be filed within a further period of 30 days, sub