No. 16 CONSW No. 135/2016 in SWP No. 772/2008 Kaiser Ahmad Mir & Ors. v. State of Kerala and another’ & Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE ORDER

#01. The applicant seeks condonation for the 346 days delay in filing the review petition, seeking review of the judgment titled ‘Kasier Ahmed Mir vs. State of J&K and others’ passed on 29.05.2015 in SWP No. 722/2008.

#02. The applicant submits that he filed a writ petition, seeking quashing of order No. Estt/Spo/Eng/08 dated 11.03.2008, vide which private respondent No. 8, namely Mst. Meema Begum, was appointed on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband, Constable Mohammad Maqbool Mir, who was kidnapped by some unidentified gunmen in the year 2005.

#03. The applicant further submits, he being the brother of the deceased/Constable, who was the only bread earner of the family was the only eligible person to be appointed on compassionate grounds but the respondents, ignoring his claim, have appointed respondent No. 8. The 2 CONSW No. 135/2016 writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2015.

#04. The contention of the applicant, in support of his application is that he belongs to a far-flung area of Village Sugam, District Kupwara, and belongs to poor class of society, as such, he could not remain in regular contact with his counsel, therefore, did not know about the dismissal of the writ petition. It is submitted that as soon as he came to know about its dismissal, he approached this Court for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and for filing review in which considerable time was consumed, resulting in delay in filing the review petition.

#05. It is also submitted that delayed knowledge about the dismissal of the writ petition was due to reasons beyond his control, therefore seeks condonation of delay.

#06. The respondents have objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the applicant has not specifically explained the delay in filing the application. According to the, the plea raised by the applicant is also misconceived, as he has not remained vigilant and made no efforts to know about the fate of his case. It is submitted that the applicant has all along remained negligent and indolent and has resorted to this false plea to maintain this application.

#07. The period for filing review of a judgment under the High Court Rules is 30 days from the date of judgment, only when sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay. There is a delay of 346 days in filing the review petition. The applicant has to show sufficient cause for the same. 3 CONSW No. 135/2016

#08. The applicant has only emphasized on the fact that he belongs to a far- flung area, and belongs to a poor and downtrodden class of society, therefore, he was unable to contact his counsel but does not offer any explanation regarding why he could not do so, when he was prosecuting the writ petition all along. These averments are vague and do not reflect any cause of delay without specifying what prevented him from contacting his counsel who was contesting on his behalf. Condonation of delay cannot be sought as a matter of course on mere ipse dixit of an applicant. The applicant has to show good and sufficient cause for the same. Flimsy, false, and casual reasons cannot be taken for the purpose of condoning huge delay.

#09. The application is vague and does not lay any facts for projecting justifiable cause for condoning the delay. A long delay of 346 days cannot be condoned without laying any reasonable basis of the same, on the mere statement of the applicant that he could not contact his counsel. A litigant who sleeps over his right and does not diligently follow the litigation is not entitled to exercise of discretion much less condonation of delay.

#10. In ‘P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and another’, AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the law of limitation held that: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed 4 CONSW No. 135/2016 in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.”

#11. Similarly in ‘Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another’, (2012) 3 SCC 563, it was held that: “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.”

#12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the explanation given by the applicant, I find, has no sufficient cause for condoning the delay to explain the inordinate delay of 346 days, accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu: 06.04.2023 Michal Sharma