ORDER :

1. There are two hurdles in the way of the petitioners. The first is the delay of 227 days from the date of the review order (502 days, if one counts from the original order). This delay is sought to be only explained by stating that it is unintentional and on account of the administrative procedure. This Court is not here to protect the administrative inefficiencies and incompetence in being able avail of legal remedies by the State Governments more so in the context of the judgment in Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 563. There is no reason whatsoever to condone the delay.

2. Even on merits we find that the stand sought to be taken as recorded in the impugned order was that the statement made by the officer of the petitioner was without any power or authority and does not bind the petitioner. On our query as to what action was taken against the officer, learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there are no instructions in this behalf.

3. The endeavour is thus, to wriggle out of a stand taken by the competent officer before the High Court and the object is once again the same as we have noticed in the earl