ORDER :

1. The present application (Misc. Application No. 113/2016) has been filed by the applicant – State (Respondents in the writ proceedings) seeking recalling/review of the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

2. It is to be noted that the application in hands seeking recalling/review of the order passed as back as on 06.02.2012 came to be filed on 13.04.2016 – with a delay of about four years.

3. While filing the application, no explanation worth the name was given by the applicant for the delay, however, subsequently an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed by the respondent – State on 11.09.2017, apparently consequent to the Court proceedings of 11.08.2020 and in wake of the liberty sought during such proceedings.

4. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the non-applicant (writ petitioners) raised following two preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the application:-

(i) the application in hand has been filed with an inordinate delay of four years, that too without proper explanation of the delay.

(ii) The order dated 06.02.2012 was passed by the Court with the consent and it dealt with all the applicable law on the subject. As there is no error, much less apparent error, the application does not fall within the ambit of review / recalling.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the applicant / respondent – State submitted that the delay in question occurred on account of pendency of the matter at various stages of the State Government.

7. Reading the application in its entirety, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that initially the State had decided not to file an appeal and to comply with the order, but when the matter was examined by the Finance Department, it was found that the order passed by this Court on 06.02.2012 was not in conformity with the Circular of the State Government dated 06.09.2002.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the State has shown the movement of the file at different stages in its delay condonation application which shows that the State was precluded from filing the application in time and prayed that four years’ time that has been taken by the State in moving the present application be condoned, as the same stands duly explained.

9. In support of his contention that a litigant, more particularly the State, is not required to explain each days’ delay, learned counsel submitted that the detailed application filed by the applicant / State clearly shows that the State was not sitting idle and the matter was under active consideration of the State.

10. He argued that the State has decided to file the application seeking review/recalling of the order for cogent reasons and valid grounds and prayed that the delay condonation application be allowed and the application for recalling / review be heard on its merit.

11. In support of his contention that the delay caused in filing the application should be considered sympathetically, learned counsel cited Division Bench judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ashiana Amar Developers (D.S. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1407/2018).

12. Highlighting that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed in September, 2017 and inspite of taking time for filing reply, no reply to the application has been filed by the non-applicants, Mr. Shah argued that whatever has been stated by the applicant-State in the application supported by an affidavit has remained unrebutted and thus, the application deserved acceptance.

13. On merits of the application, learned counsel submitted that true it is, that the order under consideration was passed by the Court while recording consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the State, but one fact cannot be lost sight of is, that the Court had referred to and relied upon the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 06.09.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), and