SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35671

R.P.No.85/2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

AND

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REVIEW PETITION NO.85/2019 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.9347/2017 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1.

NATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ICAR)

KARNAL- 132001, HARYANA

REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR

2.

SOUTHERN REGIONAL STATION OF

NDRI, ADUGODI

BANGALORE 3 560 030

REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD

& PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.B.A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADV.)

AND:

R.SHIV KUMAR

S/O RANGAPPA

RESIDING AT NO.18/2-1

5TH CROSS, VENKATESWARA LAYOUT

SUDU GUNTANA PALYA

D.R.C.POST

BANGALORE 3 560 029

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.R.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV.)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (A)

R.P.No.85/2019

2

REVIEW AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED: 01.09.2017

PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9347/2017

(S-CAT) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Heard.

This petition is filed seeking review of the

order

of

this

Court

dated

01.09.2017

in

W.P.No.9347/2017 (S-CAT). There is 527 days delay in

filing the petition. Therefore, IA No.1/2019 is filed

seeking condonation of delay.

3.

Needless to state that as per Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, the petitioners have to satisfy the

Court that there was sufficient cause for them in not

filing the petition within the prescribed time. The

explanation of the petitioners for the inordinate delay of

527 days in filing the petition is found only in

paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit.

3

4.

In paragraph 5, it is said that after

meticulous examination of the order and taking legal

consultation, it was found that the order in question has

ramification over more than 100 Institutes of the Indian

Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Except that

absolutely there is no other explanation.

5.

In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is said that

the process of consultation took lot of time, therefore,

there is delay in filing the petition. As per the

petitioners themselves, the certified copy of the order

was received within 13 days from the date of passing of

the order.

6.

The petitioners are autonomous statutory

bodies and not laymen. Under the circumstances, it

goes hard to accept that they are unaware that they

have to explain delay giving particulars such as at how

many levels the file was scrutinized and for how many

days the file was pending in such departments.

Absolutely there is no such objective explanation or

information.

4

7.

Under the circumstances, this Court does

not find any merit in the application. Therefore, the

application is dismissed. Consequently, the petition is

also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

akc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top