1. The aforesaid review application is supported by a delay condonation application. When the matter was last listed, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the review application and also stated that there is inordinate delay in filing the review application. Several judgments have been relied upon. She also submitted for perusal of the Court the written instructions received by her from the office of the District Magistrate, which were taken on record.

2. As far as the aspect of delay in filing the review application is concerned, the same is being considered at the outset. Though, no counter affidavit has been filed to oppose the delay condonation application, the same can be considered on its own merit.

3. The delay condonation application dated 7.11.2024 is supported by an affidavit dated 27.10.2024 in which it is stated that the applicants had approached the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition bearing SLP (C) No.20554 of 2024 challenging the judgment and order dated 16.7.2024 passed by this Court in Writ - C No.2022 of 2023 filed by the petitioners / applicants. The Supreme Court permitted the applicants to withdrawn that petition by means of its order dated 13.9.2024 whereafter the applicants preferred the review application alongwith delay condonation application.

4. It is stated that since the SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the review application could not be filed within the prescribed limitation of 30 days. Subsequently, it is stated, collecting all the necessary documents took more than 30 days or so, and as such the delay in filing the present review application is genuine and bonafide. The report of the Stamp Reporter, which is on record, shows that the review application was presented on 7.11.2024 and it is beyond time by 84 days. Three defects were pointed out by the Stamp Reporter on 8.11.2024, which are as follows: -
"1. 242 - Title needs correction.
2. 45 - Parties are not properly described.
3. 6 - Certified copy of judgment and formal order should bear the Court fees of Rs.1.50/- each."

5. However, all the aforesaid defects were removed only on 19.12.2024, that is, after about 40 days and the review application with accompanying applications were then presented on 19.12.2024.

6. Therefore, not only was the review application not filed within the statutory limited period of 30 days, but the applicants also, even after swearing the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application on 27.10.2024 before the Oath Commissioner in the High Court, submitted the review application for reporting before the Stamp Reporter on 7.11.2024. It is pertinent to state that the affidavit in support of the stay application had also been sworn on 27.10.2024. Therefore, the delay in submitting the aforesaid review application for stamp reporting is inordinate. Moreover, despite the defects being raised by the Stamp Reporter on 8.11.2024, it took the applicants around 40 days to remove the most minor defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter and present the review application on 19.12.2024. As such, the delay cannot but be called inordinate. 'Inordinate' is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as deviating from the rule, irregular, immoderate, excessive. Therefore, the delay condonation application itself is liable to be rejected.

7. Now regarding the preliminary objection of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to maintainability of the review petition, Writ - C No. 2022 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners / applicants seeking quashing of the order of the District Magistrate dated 30.3.2022 and the appellate order of the Commissioner dated 3.12.2022. On finding that illegal mining was being done by the petitioners and that a Pokeland Machine was used for filling up the pits created by illegal mining with soil to remove evidence of illegal mining, the various replies of the petitioners to the notices were re