State of Meghalaya and others vs Shri Pawan Bawri

The applicants herein seek to maintain a review petition against the order dated 16.12.2015, as passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

WP(C) No.155 of 2015 whereby, the Division Bench has interfered with the proceedings for land acquisition in relation to the land forming the

subject-matter of the petition and has directed the State to initiate the proceedings afresh under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The review petition, as filed on 29.04.2016, is reportedly time-barred by a period

of about 104 days.

The applicants have filed an application seeking condonation of delay [MC (Review Pet.) No.2 of 2016], essentially with the submissions that

against the impugned order dated 16.12.2015, they had proposed to file a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme

Court but, it was noticed that the main issue in the matter as regards locus standi of the writ petitioner/respondent, though forming part of the

pleadings, was not considered by the High Court and it was opined that a review petition be filed in the High Court on the issue of locus standi of

the writ petitioner/respondent. It is submitted that after receiving the opinion of the learned counsel for the appellant in the Supreme Court, the

State Government decided to file a review petition and hence, the review petition came to be filed after a delay of about 104 days.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, essentially with the submissions that the application seeking

condonation of delay is bereft of necessary particulars as to when the matter was sent to the Government counsel in the Supreme Court, when was

it received back, and why the entire process consumed that much of time. It is submitted that the applicants have only made cursory submissions

that a lot of time was consumed in the process without giving out day to day explanation of delay.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that review in this case is necessitated as the vital issue on the locus of the writ petitioner/respondent

is involved; and such an issue, going to the root of the matter, needs to be examined in the review petition. Learned counsel also submits that the

delay in filing the review petition has not been intentional and has occurred for the bona fide reasons stated in the application.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has strenuously opposed the prayer for condonation of delay with the submissions

that excessive delay of more than 100 days has not been properly explained and even otherwise, the review petition is not based on any ground

worth consideration.

So far the merits of the matter are concerned, obviously this Court would not be making final comment in that regard while dealing with the

application seeking condonation of delay. Such submissions have been taken note of in this order only to indicate broadly the subject-matter of

review petition. So far the question of condonation of delay is concerned, we are clearly of the view that ordinarily, a matter is preferred to be

decided on its merits rather than throwing it out only on the ground of limitation. True it is that ordinarily, a litigant is supposed to take requisite

steps within time provided by the law of limitation and, if approaching the Court beyond time, has to explain the delay properly before the matter is

entertained. However, such requirement of explanation and making out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay cannot be stretched to the extent

of unrealistic approach and the matter is required to be examined broadly on all the facts and surrounding factors.

The order in question was passed on 16.12.2015 and the review petition has been filed on 29.04.2016. The submissions as made in the

application seeking condonation of delay cannot be said to be altogether fanciful or unrealistic because ordinarily, after the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court, the aggrieved party would approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court, if so advised. Of course, it was expected that the requisite

dates and particulars were furnished in the application but then, the suggestion that the matter was sent for filing of SLP and then, the counsel

opined for filing a review petition cannot be brushed aside altogether only for the reason that all the relevant dates have not been mentioned.

Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the cause as stated in relation to a short delay of 104 days cannot be said to be

altogether incorrect so as to reject the review petition only on the ground of limitation. On the contrary, having regard of the circumstances and

subject-matter, it appears just and proper to examine the review petition on its merits after condoning the delay in filing.

Accordingly, the application [MC (Review Pet.) No.2 of 2016] is allowed; the delay in filing the review petition is condoned; and the review

petition is taken on the regular side. The review petition be placed for orders after two weeks, as prayed.

MC [Review Pet.] No.2 of 2016 stands disposed of.