AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NONE present for the petitioner.
THERE is delay of 1040 days in moving this revision petition. The petitioner has filed a small affidavit which is reproduced as hereunder: "I Anand Laxman Naik, aged about 43 years, occupation :Conductor KSRTC depot at Kumata; Uttarakannada District ; Karnataka State here by solemnly affirm and state as below
I being a "D" grade employee in KSRTC not in position to attend in person before the Hon''ble Commission, not in a financial condition to engage the lawyers in the cases humbly submitted this affidavit by registered post. The same may kindly be accepted in the interest at justice and equity.
In the same case revision petition No. 965 to 967/2012 Hon''ble Commission''s order received few days back. So delay in filing the appeal. If any delay in filing this appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. The contact at Para No. 1 to 7 mentioned in appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and helite.
WE have perused the record. There is huge delay in filing this revision petition. The petitioner could have sent this revision petition without delay but the needful was not done. The day to day delay was never explained. The law provides remedy for the poor persons. They can file the appeal through post as is done by the petitioner himself in this case. Moreover, the above said cases, revision petitions No. 965 to 967 of 2012, were decided as back as on 14.2.2014. This revision petition was filed on 4.8.2014 i.e. 1040 days after the announcement of the judgement by the State Commission on 17.1.2011 besides the prescribed period of 90 days total being 1144 days. Moreover, if a court decides a case after the lapse of 3 years, it does not mean that the said delay would be automatically condoned with the change of law or with the reversal of a judgment by the higher court. No new cause of action arises. It does not explain how the new cause of action has arisen. Moreover the findings of the State Commission in the above cited two kind of cases are different. The case is hopelessly barred by time in view of the Supreme Court authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 1977 AIR(SC) 2221 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).
THE Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. and Area Dev. Boa and Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.
THE Apex Court''s division Bench consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel in a recent authority titled as M/s Jeevan Diesals Elec. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 22240 -22241 of 2014, decided on 25.08.2014, has not condoned the delay of 101 days.
CONSEQUENTLY , the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.