ORDER :

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The prayer made by the applicants/appellants in the application is for extension of time granted by this Court for payment of costs to the respondent. Cost was imposed vide order dated 13.02.2015 while accepting application seeking condonation of delay.

2. To appreciate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice certain facts in brief.

3. OWP No. 1209/2009 was filed by the respondent. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notifications dated 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008 with further prayer that respondent should be allowed to avail the benefit of exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of notification dated 14.11.2002. There were bunch of writ petitions filed in this Court. Those were allowed vide a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2010 with detailed order passed in OWP No. 470/2008 titled as Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited vs. Union of India and others. Case of the respondent was not listed along with the bunch of petitions. It was taken up later on 04.05.2011 and was disposed of in terms of the detailed judgment in Reckitt Benckiser’s case (supra).

4. The applicant/appellant had challenged the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing bunch of LPAs. The same were pending in this Court. However, the appeal in the case in hand was filed belatedly along with an application seeking condonation of 928 days delay in filing the appeal. In the application filed for condonation of delay, arguments were heard and order was reserved. The same was pronounced on 13.02.2015. The application was allowed and delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent on or before 27.02.2015. Cost was not paid within the time granted. Application was filed seeking extension of time for payment of cost, as ordered by this Court on 13.02.2015.

5. The application came up for hearing on 12.10.2015 and the same was allowed. The applicant was granted two weeks time to deposit the cost in terms of order dated 13.02.2015. As pleaded by the applicants, the amount was deposited with the Registry of this Court on 26.10.2015. The non-applicant/respondent being aggrieved against the order passed by this Court, extending time for deposit of cost, filed review petition bearing RPLPA No. 16/2015 which was allowed on 06.02.2018. The order dated 12.10.2015 passed by this Court, extending time for deposit of cost, was recalled. APLPA No. 44/2015 was revived. The applicant was permitted to file supplementary affidavit to which even the non-applicant was granted liberty to file objections. It is how the matter is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal came up for hearing before the Court on 10.02.2015 and the order was reserved. No specific date was given for pronouncement of the order. The case was not shown in the regular cause list, which is circulated to the Advocates mentioning the case in the list of cases fixed for pronouncement of orders. The case was shown for pronouncement of order in the supplementary cause list on 13.02.2015. As a result of this the applicants never came to know about the order passed by this Court on 13.02.2015, condoning the delay subject to payment of cost or the other conditions attached thereto. The counsel who represented the applicants failed to inform the department otherwise the amount of cost was quite meagre and could be deposited without failure. The applicants should not be made to suffer only on account of default of the counsel. The fact that other appeals filed against the bunch of petitions decided were pending at that time, was required to be considered. His submission is that the applicants were not to gain anything by delaying payment of cost imposed by this Court.

7. It was further submitted that in case the Court fixes the time for doing certain thing,