9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 375 - HC - Indian LawsLimitation - Condonation of delay of 105 days - Misused - Filing Revision Petition against order dated 11th February, 2010 - The order dated 11th February, 2010 was passed by the learned ACMM, and the department was advised by its counsel immediately to assail the order, the department was supposed to take action within a reasonable time. Reasonable time in this case was before expiry of period of limitation for filing the revision petition - It was Standing Counsel of the department who advised her in this case and the department was very well aware that order has to be challenged within a time limit - The department in this case did not act and had to be reminded by the counsel twice - Find no force in this application for condonation of delay - The application is hereby dismissed, with the result, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing a Revision Petition.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought condonation of a 105-day delay in filing a Revision Petition against an order dated 11th February, 2010. The reasons provided for the delay included the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order, subsequent advice to the department to challenge the order, and reminders sent to the department by the counsel. The department eventually decided to file the revision petition on 25th August, 2010, leading to the delay in filing. 2. The judge noted that courts' leniency towards the department in condoning delays was being misused. It was highlighted that the department, upon receiving advice to challenge the order immediately after it was passed, failed to take action within a reasonable time. The Standing Counsel of the department was involved in advising the department, making it clear that the order needed to be challenged within the specified time limit. Despite reminders from the counsel, the department did not act promptly. 3. The court found the explanation provided for the delay to be insufficient and unacceptable. It was concluded that there was no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Revision Petition as well.
|
