The court emphasizes the necessity of timely action in judicial proceedings, rejecting an unsubstantiated application for condonation of delay.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The review petitioner has filed this application seeking condonation of a delay of 210 days.

2. The judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.164 of 2019 was delivered on 14.01.2025. The petitioner received the certified copy of the judgment on 21.02.2025. The Central Government took a decision to file a review petition vide e-mail dated 07.03.2025. However, the review petition was filed on 26.09.2025 after a period of six months after taking decision to file the review for which there is no reason to assign for such a delay.

3. The learned Counsel for the review petitioners contended that the delay is purely due to administrative reasons, and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay has not been properly explained. When the decision was already taken on 07.03.2025, to file the review petition then it is not known as to why the review petition was filed on 26.09.2025, no explanation has been rendered in the application. The law is settled that in case day-to-day explanation is not furnished the delay cannot be condoned.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the review petitioners, the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, on several occasions, dealt with the issue of delay and rendered judgments, which are reproduced below:

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan , 1(2006) 4 SCC 322 6.1 The learned Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. held as under:

_______________

“ 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powersif there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”

M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2(2007) 9 SCC 78

6.2 The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja has held as under:

“11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit.”

_________________

Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswas

6.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Nadia Distt.

Primary School Council held as under:

“11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken