AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are inclined to condone the delay in this
matter so as to consider the review application on its merit.
The petitioner herein filed a Public Interest Litigation [''PIL''] petition that was registered as PIL No.40 of 2007 in the then jurisdictional High
Court; and after the establishment of this High Court, was re-registered as PIL No.2 of 2013. The said PIL was disposed of by a Division Bench
of this Court by way of a short order dated 05.03.2014 that reads, in its entirety, as under:-
05.03.2014
Shri BMR Chyne, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Shri. VGK Kynta, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri R. Thangkhiew, Advocate, present for the respondents No.7, 8 and 9.
Shri ND Chullai, Sr. Govt. Advocate, assisted by Shri KP Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate, present for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue raised in the present PIL No.2 of 2013 (Old PIL No.40 of 2007)
stands already answered in the case of Larfarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vrs Union of India and ors (2011) 7 SCC page 338.
Having gone through the above mentioned case of Larfarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd (Supra) decided on 6-7-2011 by the Apex
Court, we are of the view that no more directions are required to be passed in the present PIL pending since 2007.
Therefore, this PIL No.2 of 2013 is hereby closed.
Against the order aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal [No.23685 of
2014] but, on 27.10.2014, sought permission to withdraw so as to file a review petition in this Court because, according to the petitioner, the
issues involved in its petition were not similar to those involved in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India: (2011) 7 SCC 338. The
Hon''ble Supreme Court granted the prayer so made by the petitioner and disposed of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal with the following
order:-
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition so as to enable the petitioner to file a review application because
according to the petitioner, the issues involved in this petition and the issue involved in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
[(2011) 7 SCC 338], are not similar.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
In the event of rejection of the review application filed by the petitioners, it would be open to him to approach this Court again for challenging the
validity of the impugned order.
After the aforesaid order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petitioner filed the application seeking review of the order passed by this Court
along with an application seeking condonation of delay bearing No. MC [Review Pet.] No.1 of 2015. At the initial stage, a Division Bench of this
Court took exception on the expressions used in the said application and dismissed the same by the order dated 27.07.2015 but with liberty to the
petitioner to file afresh.
The petitioner has now filed the present one as a fresh application seeking condonation of delay, being . In this application, the petitioner has
projected as if the application for review is delayed only by a period of 16 days and has prayed for condoning the delay accordingly. Earlier, while
considering this application, it was noticed that the petitioner had also taken a ground as if the Law of Limitation was not applicable to the State of
Meghalaya; and, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench of this Court on the questions as to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act do not
apply to the tribal areas now comprising the State of Meghalaya and as to whether the Law of Limitation is not applicable to the application
seeking review of the order dated 05.03.2014 passed in PIL No.2 of 2013. The said reference was answered by a Larger Bench of this Court on
12.04.2017 while holding as under:-
1.The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the entire State of Meghalaya including the tribal areas of Autonomous Districts or Regions.
An application for review of an order passed by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily be
filed within a period of 30 days from the date of making of the order but it would always remain open for the Court to entertain the review
application filed beyond this period of 30 days if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within
such period.
With the aforesaid answer to the reference, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application shall now be placed before
a Division Bench of this Court for consideration.
In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay has now been placed before us for consideration.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the delay in filing the review petition had been for bona fide reasons as the petitioner had been
prosecuting the remedy before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and as per the permission granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 27.10.2014, has
filed the review application on 11.12.2014. The review application, according to the petitioner, is delayed only by a period of 16 days counted
from the date of the order of the Supreme Court and this delay occurred because of the time taken in communication of the order of Supreme
Court to the petitioner.
The application seeking condonation of delay has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the principal contesting
respondent i.e. respondents No.7, 8 and 9. Similarly, the application has been opposed by the learned GA as also learned counsel appearing for
the KHADC. The substance of the opposition is that the petitioner has wrongly projected in the application as if the review application is delayed
only by a period of 16 days although, the review application is, in fact, delayed by a period of 187 days as the period of limitation is to be counted
from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that the petitioner has not been able to
make out a case for condonation of excessive delay and mere withdrawal of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court would
not extend the period of limitation applicable to the case.
Learned CGC appearing for the respondents related with the Central Government and Central Agencies has, of course, not put the question of
delay to contention.
As noticed, the Larger Bench of this Court has held that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the entire State of Meghalaya. The Larger Bench
has also held that the application for review of an order passed by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should ordinarily be filed within 30 days from the date of making of order but it would always remain open for the Court to entertain the review
application filed beyond this period of 30 days if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within
such period.
True it is that the application as filed in this matter is lacking in several particulars and even the period of delay does not appear to have been
rightly projected but, in our opinion, all such aspects remain essentially a matter of form in this case and it does not appear appropriate to decline
the review application only on the ground of delay.
As noticed, after passing of the order dated 05.03.2014, the petitioner indeed approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble
Supreme Court ultimately allowed the petitioner to withdraw so as to approach this Court by way of a review application. After passing the order
of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petitioner did not take excessive time and filed the review application on 11.12.2014. Even if the application is
found laconic and wanting in particulars, looking to the spirit of the order of the Supreme Court and the subject-matter, it appears just and proper
that the delay in filing the review application be condoned so as to examine the review application on its merit.
In the overall analysis of the singular circumstances of the present case, the cause as stated by the petitioner is taken as sufficient for not filing
the review application within the period of 30 days from the date of order. Accordingly, the application [MC (Review Pet.) No.7 of 2015] is
allowed in the manner that the delay in filing the review application is condoned; and the review application is taken on the regular side.
The review application pertains to the order dated 05.03.2014 as passed in PIL No.2 of 2013 (Old No.40 of 2007) that was filed way back
in the year 2007. Hence, it does appear appropriate to finally consider the review application on its merit at the earliest. The review application is,
therefore, ordered to be posted for orders and final hearing on 09.05.2017 as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.
Needless to observe that in this order, we have not made any comment on the merits of the issues involved in the review application. MC
(Review Pet.) No.7 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.