9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1122 - HC - CustomsSeeking condonation of delay of 470 days in filing the review petition - Sufficient reason for delay provided or not - whether the review petition has to be filed in the case or not? - Benefit of advance license - The issue was decided against the revenue 2018 (10) TMI 709 - DELHI HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - It is stated that the file was put up for approval of the Chief Commissioner in the third week of July, 2019 and he immediately granted the approval. The review petition was drafted and filed at the first possible opportunity . It is relevant to note that the review petition was filed on 28.09.2019, which is two months after the final approval was stated to be granted. It is well-settled that each day of the delay is required to be explained. In the present case, the delay is substantial and no particulars to explain the delay have been provided. There are no grounds to condone the delay in filing the review petition. The application is dismissed.
Issues involved:
Delay in filing review petition Summary: Issue 1: Delay in filing review petition The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 470 days in filing the review petition for review of the order dated 16.04.2018. The respondent explained the delay by stating that after the receipt of the impugned order, they filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 29.03.2019. However, the respondent became aware of the dismissal only in May 2019. The file was then put up before the Commissioner for approval in June 2019, but due to the transfer of the concerned officer and loss of documents, the review petition was filed on 28.09.2019, more than two months after the final approval was granted. Issue 2: Lack of specific details and explanations for delay The Court noted that the respondent failed to provide specific dates and explanations for various delays in the process of filing the review petition. The lack of particulars regarding when the respondent became aware of the SLP dismissal, when the file was put up before the Commissioner, the transfer of the officer, and the loss and retrieval of documents raised concerns about the credibility of the reasons provided for the delay. Legal Precedent: Citing the case of Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr., the Court emphasized that government bodies must have reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays in legal proceedings. The Court highlighted that condonation of delay should not be granted as a routine benefit and that government departments have a special obligation to perform their duties diligently. Decision: Based on the substantial and unexplained delay in filing the review petition, the Court found no grounds to condone the delay and subsequently dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the review petition itself.
|
